Tennessee Judicial "Change" Agent Janice Johnson
At the November 15, 2011 hearing in reference to the "sunset" issue Janice Johnson submitted the following:
I believe that all these bodies
should remain in sunset because they are either unconstitutional or (in the case
of the Court of the Judiciary) not operating as was originally
intended.
Our current method of appointing
judges to the Appeals Court and to the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and all
current holders of those offices are in violation of the Tennessee Constitution
(Article 6 Section 3 (judges elections) Article 6 Section 5 (vacancies filled))
and of the Tennessee Code 16-4-102 and 16-3-101. Consequently, it is the duty
of the legislature (under Article 6 Section 6) to remove all judges sitting in
violation of said provisions. (see attached code and Tennessee
Constitution)
Additionally, the Judicial
Nomination Commission (TCA 17-4-101) and the Judicial Performance
Evaluation Commission, which are part of the retention election statue (TCA
17-4-201), are accordingly unconstitutional. These provisions of the code are
void under the “void ab initio” rule which makes all of their decisions of
these courts unenforceable. They are a nullity according to the express holdings
of both the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of
Tennessee: Norton v. Shelby County (U.S. Supreme Court ruling) and Franks v.
State (Tennessee Supreme Court ruling).
Under the "void ab initio"rule,
an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Norton v.
Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 30 L. Ed. 178, 6 S. Ct. 1121 (1886). Franks v. State, 772 S.W.2d 428,
431 (Tenn. 1989)
No comments:
Post a Comment