A report in The Intercept described how some immigration judges are allowing government lawyers representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to remain anonymous.
Of course, all power is subject to abuse. But it's important to bear in mind the crucial constitutional purpose served by exercises of our freedom of expression and communication and association.
Past SCOTUS justices who cared to inform Americans about the crucial truth about and vital purposes of the First Amendment kindly and conscientiously quoted a crucial clarification by the First Continental Congress in 1774. SCOTUS justices did so in majority opinions in Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
The point of looking back to 1774 is, in part, to show that long before the First Amendment, many Americans demonstrated the meaning of the rights and freedoms that the First Amendment was crafted to protect. The First Amendment (merely) documented pre-existing rights and freedoms. One well-known landmark on the road to such freedoms was demonstrated with declarations in July 1776.
The powerful and crucial second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence declared “truths” that the august Second Continental Congress saw as “self-evident” (as we should also). Such “truths” included that “all” citizens are “equal” under our laws; all American “Governments” must be “instituted” with only “just Powers” derived exclusively “from the Consent of the Governed;” and all such “Powers” must be exercised solely “to effect” the “Safety and Happiness” of “the People.” All American governments must use their “Powers” solely “to secure” the “Rights” of “the People,” including the “Rights” to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Almost two years earlier, on October 26, 1774, the First Continental Congress declared “five great rights” of all American citizens. That august assemblage included some of the brightest stars, not only of the American Revolution, but also of the future new government under our Constitution starting in 1789. They included our first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, and our first SCOTUS Chief Justice, John Jay (each of whom also was a member of the Second Continental Congress).
One of the “great rights” they declared was “the freedom of the press.” That great right helps illustrate the great truth in our Declaration of Independence that “all” citizens are “equal.” Fortunately, the 1774 Congress did more than merely write that right. They emphasized its meaning and power:
The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs.
I respectfully submit that one of the greatest and most egregious failures of too many lawyers and judges is the failure to consider and care about what every lawyer and judge swears to care about most.
Our Constitution (Article VI) requires all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers" (state and federal) to promise to (and acknowledge that they must) "support this Constitution." Federal law (5 U.S.C. 3331) requires all such federal employees (including every judge or justice, but excluding the president (because of his oath is prescribed in Article II)) to promise to (and acknowledge that they must) always in all ways possible "support and defend" our "Constitution [ ] against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "will bear true faith and allegiance to" our "Constitution."
Even attorneys who are not employed by federal courts are officers of such courts, and they promise to (and acknowledge that they must) always in all ways possible "support" our "Constitution."
At least two Chief Justices of SCOTUS (writing for two unanimous courts) had some strong words for lawyers or judges violating their oaths.
Chief Justices Marshall (and SCOTUS) in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) emphasized that any judge (any public servant) violating his oath is guilty of “worse than solemn mockery” of our Constitution. Subsequently, Chief Justice Marshall (and SCOTUS) in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) emphasized that any judge (any public servant) “usurp[ing]” any power “not given” in the Constitution is guilty of “treason to the Constitution.” Chief Justice Burger and SCOTUS emphasized the same in United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).
Of course, all power is subject to abuse. But it's important to bear in mind the crucial constitutional purpose served by exercises of our freedom of expression and communication and association.
Past SCOTUS justices who cared to inform Americans about the crucial truth about and vital purposes of the First Amendment kindly and conscientiously quoted a crucial clarification by the First Continental Congress in 1774. SCOTUS justices did so in majority opinions in Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
The point of looking back to 1774 is, in part, to show that long before the First Amendment, many Americans demonstrated the meaning of the rights and freedoms that the First Amendment was crafted to protect. The First Amendment (merely) documented pre-existing rights and freedoms. One well-known landmark on the road to such freedoms was demonstrated with declarations in July 1776.
The powerful and crucial second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence declared “truths” that the august Second Continental Congress saw as “self-evident” (as we should also). Such “truths” included that “all” citizens are “equal” under our laws; all American “Governments” must be “instituted” with only “just Powers” derived exclusively “from the Consent of the Governed;” and all such “Powers” must be exercised solely “to effect” the “Safety and Happiness” of “the People.” All American governments must use their “Powers” solely “to secure” the “Rights” of “the People,” including the “Rights” to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Almost two years earlier, on October 26, 1774, the First Continental Congress declared “five great rights” of all American citizens. That august assemblage included some of the brightest stars, not only of the American Revolution, but also of the future new government under our Constitution starting in 1789. They included our first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, and our first SCOTUS Chief Justice, John Jay (each of whom also was a member of the Second Continental Congress).
One of the “great rights” they declared was “the freedom of the press.” That great right helps illustrate the great truth in our Declaration of Independence that “all” citizens are “equal.” Fortunately, the 1774 Congress did more than merely write that right. They emphasized its meaning and power:
The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs.
I respectfully submit that one of the greatest and most egregious failures of too many lawyers and judges is the failure to consider and care about what every lawyer and judge swears to care about most.
Our Constitution (Article VI) requires all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers" (state and federal) to promise to (and acknowledge that they must) "support this Constitution." Federal law (5 U.S.C. 3331) requires all such federal employees (including every judge or justice, but excluding the president (because of his oath is prescribed in Article II)) to promise to (and acknowledge that they must) always in all ways possible "support and defend" our "Constitution [ ] against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "will bear true faith and allegiance to" our "Constitution."
Even attorneys who are not employed by federal courts are officers of such courts, and they promise to (and acknowledge that they must) always in all ways possible "support" our "Constitution."
At least two Chief Justices of SCOTUS (writing for two unanimous courts) had some strong words for lawyers or judges violating their oaths.
Chief Justices Marshall (and SCOTUS) in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) emphasized that any judge (any public servant) violating his oath is guilty of “worse than solemn mockery” of our Constitution. Subsequently, Chief Justice Marshall (and SCOTUS) in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) emphasized that any judge (any public servant) “usurp[ing]” any power “not given” in the Constitution is guilty of “treason to the Constitution.” Chief Justice Burger and SCOTUS emphasized the same in United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).