Many courts have become corrupt and self-serving because of the relatively unchecked power of the bench. An example is in Los Angeles Superior Court - downtown Branch where attorney Richard Fine has been locked in solitary confinement at the whim of Judge David Yaffee because Fine exposed the yearly $40 thousand a year "stipend" from the L.A. County Supervisors, and it appears that that "stipend" has rendered many a decision in favor of L.A. County. This bill would serve as an additional check on judicial power, which seems to have run amok in many instances.

Article I, section 5, clause 2: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

This bill would, in this instance, harmonize the rules of both Houses on this subject.

I perceive two primary reasons why elected officials object to a requirement to confirm constitutional authority for new legislation.

1. Many legislators believe the "living Constitution" argument that basically says this document must "grow and change" with conditions. They are sincere in this belief, unable to comprehend that such a fluid governing document is tantamount to no law at all.

2. Many legislators simply don't care. They are traitors to their oath of office, but if no one challenges them---and specifically if they are not challenged by the voters in the district that elected them and tossed out of office---they get away with their treason.

I know. I have such a "representative" for the congressional district where I live. He wrote me a letter in 2000 saying he could not support the Liberty Amendment because it would require dismantling many "good programs" that do not have specific constitutional authority.