Nov 22

ImperialJudiciaryHow to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, by Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. ★★★★★

This book was chosen to be read by me, as it pertained to thoughts I was having about the “mis-balance” of powers that we currently observe in the function of our national government, particularly, that the judiciary has tended to create law, rather than just interpret the law, and to do so outside of the boundaries permitted by the constitution. Vieira, as a constitutional lawyer, develops an argument against our current court system in a manner better thought out than even Andrew Napolitano, who was recently reviewed by me. While Vieira may not be as public of figure as Vieira, Vieira deserves a much greater audience, and more seriousness given to his appeal in this book and others that he has published. Napolitano seems to have a strong public forum, since he is functionally a libertarian with leanings toward natural law theory, though he does claim to be a devout Roman Catholic. I have no clue as to Vieira’s religious sentiments or beliefs, but would be forced to identify him as a strictly natural law theorist, in part because he constantly reminds us of the statement in the Declaration of Independence which offers that “the Laws of Nature and [ ] Nature’s God” is the entitlement for their grievance. Vieira, like Napolitano, utilize much legal jargon, mostly in latin, but easily defined with the Apple computer dictionary.

The book is divided into two parts, the first being the argument that 6 members of the Supreme Court, Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy, O’Connor, Souter and Stevens committed high crimes and treason, but making a judgment under the veil of constitutional authority, while defying the constitution in seeking the authority of European and international law decisions. Specifically, the court case mentioned was Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court charge was against a law on the Texas books forbidding homosexual sodomy. Vieira does a masterful piece in demonstrating how the Supreme Court ruling defied the US Constitution, and went against all previous court judgements. Vieira shows how permission of international court rulings as a basis for American law has since been frequently used to overturn the very substance of our constitution, and will eventually lead to the death of many of our freedoms.

The second portion of the book is a thoughtful and reasoned consideration of how we should react to this. Vieira discourages adding more law to the books to strike down the Supreme Court ruling. The constitution already has provision for dealing with an “imperial” judiciary, and more laws will only lead to the proliferation of even more laws. Rather, Vieira reminds us that in the Marbury v. Madison ruling, the court allowed that they had the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws generated by the legislature, but also opens the door for either the Executive or Legislative branch to do the same with the courts, in that all three branches of government are responsible for upholding the constitution, and no branch has a monopoly on interpretive “rights” to the constitution. The constitution affords the states the ability to object to court rulings, should they deem them to be unconstitutional (state interposition). The constitution also allows for impeachment of court members, and Vieira notes the absence of the Legislature or Executive branch to a renegade Supreme Court as also being negligent of constitutional duty to uphold the constitution. In his last words, he states that “if the House of Representatives cannot muster sufficient forces to put through even a basically toothless remonstrance to Lawrence, it should consider changing the nation’s emblem from the eagle to the ewe”. True story. Anybody serving in public capacity, whether it be as a lawyer or judge, serving in public office, or simply acting as a public commentator on political issues, MUST read this book.

Lest I leave the reader of this review with an absence of the humor and color of Vieira’s writings, it becomes sensible to offer a series of his notable quotes from the book. All of the following below are quotes from the book, and will not be referenced.

Whereas, a judicial decision such as Lawrence is “the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture”–and perhaps not even the original product of the Justices themselves, but of their clerks, who come wet behind the ears from the intellectual hothouse of that “law-profession culture,” infected with the latest communicable viruses of “good thinking” in “the culture war”.

If [ ] the Justices can incorporate foreign law–or even intergalactic legal principles drawn from episodes of Star Trek–into the Constitution, [  ] the sources of their inspirations are ultimately beside the point, the inspirations themselves becoming “law” of each case simply perforce of their enunciations.

…the “living Constitution” provides no excuse for promiscuously interpolating foreign law into constitutional interpretation–unless the Preamble can now be read a a mandate “to form a more perfect Union [with foreigners], insure [international or global] tranquility, provide for the common defense [of a New World Order], promote the general Welfare [of people throughout the World] and secure the Blessings of Liberty to [a global community, according to foreigner’s ideas of what constitutes Liberty].”

Truth, not power (or worse, the hubris of office), is the touchstone of constitutional jurisprudence.

Besides the logic of the situation, WE THE PEOPLE can imagine hundreds upon hundreds of possible decisions of judges that no one free to leave a lunatic asylum would dare to defend as constitutional…

There are many, many more quotes. Read the book. It’s worth it.


Add comments

2 Responses to “How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary”

  1. Onkel Dennis says:

    I’ve heard Ed talk at the National Press Club in the Disgrace of Columbia (as he calls it) and have maintained loose email contact with him over the years. Ed Vieira is one of the few people left in America who does two things:

    1. He digs (investigates, does research);
    2. He thinks.

    He has won all of the Supreme Court cases I was able to find on the Web, including the landmark Beck v CWA right-to-work case. The court decision lists two and a half lines of names of CWA labor-union lawyers and the National Right to Work Committee has one: Vieira – and he won the case.

    Beyond that, he is perhaps the world’s leading authority on the legal and historical aspects of U.S. money. He fully understands the fiat money scam and can dissect it minutely with his legal abilities in his two-volume classic work on the subject: Pieces of Eight: the Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the U.S. Constitution. See

    Ed also has written extensively on what he views from a legal and Constitutional standpoint as the way forward in taking back the U.S. from the traitors: the state militias. He has a column at on this.

    Having said all that, I am not quite sure where Ed is spiritually, though he is somewhere within Christianity. He has a long apologetic, given by a priest, in his two-volume novel, The Cra$hmaker, a saga about about how the Fed and Wall Street destroy the economy of the U.S. It is an interesting bit of revelation about the depth of corruption in Washington, veiled in the genre of fiction. I made a list of the characters in the book and who I thought they were in real life, and emailed it to Ed. He would deny, but not confirm – a good lawyer! The one sentence he told me at the NPC that stuck in my mind about Washington was: “The deeper you dig, the dirtier it gets.”

    The only bone I would have to pick with Ed is that he seems to become vague and abstruse beyond his defense of the U,S, Constitution, a document which denies the authority of Jesus Christ and usurps it by giving it to WE THE PEOPLE – something like what Israel did for themselves while Moses was on the mountain. Consequently, I do not identify with the U,S. government but with the only one that a person who, in baptism, gives complete loyalty: that of Jesus Christ. When one thinks (and also digs out this really basic point hidden in plain sight in scripture) about this, one does not say “our national government” or “our current court system” because we are strangers (foreigners) and aliens to them and do not identify ourselves with them. The Reformers said it: Christ alone. But that only applies to soteriology, right?

  2. Stephen Chambers says:

    The Reformers said it: Christ alone. But that only applies to soteriology, right?

    Interesting rhetorical question. It really made me think!

Leave a Reply


preload preload preload