This enlightening book addresses the crisis of judicial activism in today's government, revealing an overlooked Constitutional provision: impeachment, the recourse prescribed by the Founders for an unaccountable judiciary. Learn how to recognize judicial activism and reinstate judicial accountability.
David Barton is the Founder and President of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization that presents America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage.
WallBuilders is a name taken from the Old Testament writings of Nehemiah, who led a grassroots movement to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and restore its strength and honor. In the same way, WallBuilders seeks to energize the grassroots today to become involved in strengthening their communities, states, and nation.
David is the author of numerous best-selling books, with the subjects being drawn largely from his massive library of tens of thousands of original writings from the Founding Era. He also addresses well over 400 groups each year.
His exhaustive research has rendered him an expert in historical and constitutional issues and he serves as a consultant to state and federal legislators, has participated in several cases at the Supreme Court, was involved in the development of the History/Social Studies standards for states such as Texas and California, and has helped produce history textbooks now used in schools across the nation.
David Barton has written much on the relationship of Christianity and the founding of the United States. In this book, I think he does a good job in convincing me that the checks and balance system when it comes to the court include the right to impeach a judge without having to have an actual previously written law that the judge has broken (murder, perjury, etc). The author brings many treasure trove of quotes (some of which are now in the public domain and can be searchable online!) to support his case that this was the historical interpretation from Founding Fathers, early Jurists, law text books, etc. I got to admit that at first I was skeptical but I am convinced that "high crimes and misdemeanor" does not mean only current statutory laws, but anything that Congress might find wrong as a means of checking the Supreme Court and the Court in general. Even if readers disagree, it's worth looking into his citation and historical legwork.