An oath: A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it.  A false oath is called perjury. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

Those who sit on the United States Supreme Court take an oath of office which is prescribed by the laws of the United States. Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice is required to take following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

However, there is ample evidence to state that four of the justices of the Court, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, who are liberal members, joined by Anthony Kennedy have not lived up to the oath of office and are subject to impeachment. They undeniably violated the tenants of the document they swore to uphold when they used international law to support a ruling that opens the door for criminals under 18 to have a free ride to commit with capital crimes without fear of being put to death for their crimes. The oath says that rulings are to be made under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.'' Nothing is said about using foreign law in any decision.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented in a separate filing saying the ruling was misguided for a number of reasons, one of which was that each defendant was different so a blanket ruling doesn’t take in to consideration differing maturity levels of individuals. She is right but what she didn’t say is most revealing. She agreed with the use of foreign law input (by saying nothing against it) to arrive at the ruling because she couldn’t disagree with the ruling on those grounds without contradicting herself on the issue.

She said in a speech to the Southern Center for International Studies on October 28, 20003, that “No institution of government can afford any longer to ignore the rest of the world,” and went ahead to say that the United States judicial system should start paying more attention to foreign laws due to increasing globalization. She is concerned about the impression the United States on the world or in other words what they think of us. She said, “When U.S. courts are seen to be cognizant of other judicial systems, our ability to act as a rule-of-law model for other nations will be enhanced.” Another way of saying it is, “We will adopt the ways of the other countries and use their laws so they will like us.”  (Authors quote) (See article for source of quotes http://www.southerncenter.org/events_archive.html ) 

Using foreign sources to make decisions is an affront to our founders, the men who have died to protect our freedom and liberty, and the citizens of this nation who follow daily the duly passed laws made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and those of the several states, such laws being both constitutional and moral in the sight of God.  (See the Bill of Rights 9^th and 10^th Amendments)  The ruling using foreign law undermines sovereignty of the nation and our rule of law in one fell swoop.  Such conduct on the part of justices can be rightfully called treason.

They have violated their oath, the last part of which is, “So help me God.” They didn’t make their ruling under the Constitution and laws of the United States and they lied in the sight of God when they solemnly swore loyalty to the United States. Their conduct is traitorous and worthy of impeachment in the light of their oath of office. 

The evidence is plain and written by their own hand. I rest my case.

© 03-10-2005 DEC