Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And the States have none.When ratifying the US Constitution, it was a requirement that the States, as representative bodies, be represented in the US Congress.NOPE....Federal Constitution has no authority over State legislators. They are controlled and governed by the State Constitutions.i just googled it...the us constitution made no recall provision for senators or congressmen....They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............
Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no
THAT INCLUDES the state legislators....according to the constitution?
NEITHER can recall them from what I have read so far, so your argument doesn't work anymore, about the state legislators recalling them if they don't do as they say....
If recall or removal can be had, it will be found in each state Constitution. Not in the federal one.
these are US Senators who are elected and have power according to the US Constitution, and I just read that the founders discussed a recall measure for US congressmen and US Senators while creating the constitution and THEY DECIDED that there should not be a recall measure.
Plain and simple, the States have interests that require looking after and that is why they set the US Senate up to consist of Senators elected by State Legislatures to conduct themselves in the interests of their states, not in the interests of the people of that state.
The people have a chamber of congress to look after their interests. Its called the US House of Representatives.
And now the people have two chambers who look after their interests- as per the Constitution.
A
Because of the 17th Amendment, Illinois has a U.S. senator chosen by a single man; a governor who was later impeached and removed. Is that a logical way to choose any representative?
Why is that funny....................A
Because of the 17th Amendment, Illinois has a U.S. senator chosen by a single man; a governor who was later impeached and removed. Is that a logical way to choose any representative?
Funny how the author of your piece is in favor of state legislators picking Senators- but not in favor when State Legislators authorize governors for fill vacancies
From the 17th Amendment
Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Why is that funny....................A
Because of the 17th Amendment, Illinois has a U.S. senator chosen by a single man; a governor who was later impeached and removed. Is that a logical way to choose any representative?
Funny how the author of your piece is in favor of state legislators picking Senators- but not in favor when State Legislators authorize governors for fill vacancies
From the 17th Amendment
Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
The article stated that only 1 person would make the selection to fill the gap...............
Which wouldn't be the case if a large group of legislatures had to do so.............
The point being taken that the many choosing versus the one is the better deal.
No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.
But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?
And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?
What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?
Do you really not know the difference?
Do you really need us to explain the difference?
I would say not................I would say it is another reason to get rid of the 17th..............Why is that funny....................A
Because of the 17th Amendment, Illinois has a U.S. senator chosen by a single man; a governor who was later impeached and removed. Is that a logical way to choose any representative?
Funny how the author of your piece is in favor of state legislators picking Senators- but not in favor when State Legislators authorize governors for fill vacancies
From the 17th Amendment
Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
The article stated that only 1 person would make the selection to fill the gap...............
Which wouldn't be the case if a large group of legislatures had to do so.............
The point being taken that the many choosing versus the one is the better deal.
The 17th Amendment allowed the State Legislatures to give the Governor the power to appoint a replacement to the governor.
Should the legisltures have that power- or not?
Correct.The consequences of #2 is pretty easy to see if we look back on history.
If this amendment in place- mixed race couples would have been banned from getting married in Virginia and Georgia until the mid 1990's.
If this amendment were in place- there would be states where guns were effectively banned from private ownership.
If this amendment were in place- Americans would not have had access to contraceptives in many states for another 20 years.
And using the same argument, Dred Scott and Plessy, absolutely horrible SCOTUS rulings, would not have had to be enforced in the states who did not agree with them.
Actually that is a good point.
And there is where we could start- if the states had refused to obey Dred Scott..- and agreed upon abomination of a ruling, 25% of the country-
the Confederate States- would have declared that decision null and void.
Leaving us back where were were- where individual states do whatever they want regardless of the Bill of Rights- and blocks of states can block enforcement of the Constitution.
Ah, but the Bill of Rights is already part of the Constitution so the states would have no jurisdiction to override any part of that. It is only laws and rulings outside of the existing constitution that the people themselves could determine whether such laws or rulings were constitutional or not.
The proposed amendment does not give the people authority to override the Constitution. It only gives them power to enforce it.
Again- the Supreme Court decides when a law violates the Bill of Rights or not- and the proposed initiative would allow States to ignore a Supreme Court ruling- which would result in States being able to ignore the Bill of Rights.
And by doing so ignore the rule of law, the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic.
Indeed, the proposed 'amendment' should be rejected for that reason alone, as it in essence seeks to end our republican form of government, where citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.
A citizen residing in a given state does not forfeit his inalienable rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor do the residents of a state have the authority to decide who will or will not have his inalienable rights, where the 'remedy' is not to compel citizens to leave their state of residence because that state seeks to violate their inalienable rights, as the right to move freely about the country and live in any jurisdiction one so desires is also a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution.
The proposed 'amendment' would be anathema to citizens' inalienable rights, rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
It is understood that there are those who have been frustrated over the years with Supreme Court decisions perceived to 'overrule' the 'will of the people,' this year in particular. But those with such a perception must realize that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a collection of 50 independent countries, one Nation, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law acknowledge and codified by one Federal Constitution which manifest as the law of the land, binding on all 50 states – the necessary and proper Constitutional jurisprudence designed to safeguard our inalienable rights rendering them immune from unwarranted attack by government.
No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.
But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?
And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?
What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?
Do you really not know the difference?
Do you really need us to explain the difference?
Yes, I guess I do need for somebody to explain the difference.
No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.
But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?
And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?
What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?
Do you really not know the difference?
Do you really need us to explain the difference?
Yes, I guess I do need for somebody to explain the difference.
Okay
A dictatorship is the absolute rule by one person. No legislature, no courts- except as controlled by the Dictator. Dictators do not need to obey any law and are not subject to any law. A Dictator is not elected to be a dictator.
In our country- the Supreme Court is appointed by the President one by one- and confirmed by the Senate. Justice's do not select themselves. Nor does any Justice have absolute power- the Supreme Court can only act with a majority vote.
Nor does the Supreme Court have any ability to decide what laws it wants to review- the Supreme Court can only hear a case that has been heard by other courts. For instance- no matter how much a majority of Justice's may wish to decide who won the 2014 Superbowl- they have no legal ability to do so.
What the Supreme Court can do is decide on the Constitutionality of legislation that has passed, or criminal decisions reached by other courts. Justices are subject to the law- if they break the law, the Legislature can impeach them, and upon successful impeachment and conviction, they can then be tried for that crime.
No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.
An interesting question is why not let lawyers and judges do a natl vote to determije the 9justices....theyd be most qualified as far as being educated as to who is most impartial in the field....I do not agree that they are complete experts on the issue......they are now appointed by their party affiliations and tendencies to how they will vote..................It's clear when we have so many split votes on heavy political issues..........the vetting of these now is a complete and utter joke................but it is still much better than the proposed Amendment.I reject the Amendment totally.
Every voter uses their power to determine their Representative and their Senators every two and six years respectively.
Every voter uses their power to determine the President every four years.
As needed, representatives of the voters, i.e. the President with the oversight and consent of the Senate, appoint Supreme Court Justices.
We are a Republic, with representatives we have chosen acting on our behalf.
The O N LY way voters are made powerless as to the U.S. Government is when voters choose not to vote.
Voting is a choice and must not be made mandatory.
Regards from Rosie
What authority do you think the amendment takes away from the people's representatives?
The power of the SCOTUS, as given to that body thru the U.S. Constitution, to interpret the Constitutionality of laws.
As stated above, the Justices are the experts. Not state.bodies nor state judiciaries that are under Supreme Court jurisdiction.
This amendment aims to gut the SCOTUS and fools no one.
Regards from Rosie
They are appointed for life to prevent intimidation of losing votes for a reason................so they will not be tainted by the threat of losing their job..................It's not perfect...........and the vetting is not perfect............but the Founding Fathers did the best that could be done in this aspect............and I see no reason to change it.
And an even more interesting question- if that vote qouldnt be impartial due to politics.....that renders our entire legal system, i.e. the basis of a country, invalid and we're back to zero.
Theyd be the people most uniquely qualified to DETERMINE the best judges, so its a catch 22.An interesting question is why not let lawyers and judges do a natl vote to determije the 9justices....theyd be most qualified as far as being educated as to who is most impartial in the field....I do not agree that they are complete experts on the issue......they are now appointed by their party affiliations and tendencies to how they will vote..................It's clear when we have so many split votes on heavy political issues..........the vetting of these now is a complete and utter joke................but it is still much better than the proposed Amendment.I reject the Amendment totally.
Every voter uses their power to determine their Representative and their Senators every two and six years respectively.
Every voter uses their power to determine the President every four years.
As needed, representatives of the voters, i.e. the President with the oversight and consent of the Senate, appoint Supreme Court Justices.
We are a Republic, with representatives we have chosen acting on our behalf.
The O N LY way voters are made powerless as to the U.S. Government is when voters choose not to vote.
Voting is a choice and must not be made mandatory.
Regards from Rosie
What authority do you think the amendment takes away from the people's representatives?
The power of the SCOTUS, as given to that body thru the U.S. Constitution, to interpret the Constitutionality of laws.
As stated above, the Justices are the experts. Not state.bodies nor state judiciaries that are under Supreme Court jurisdiction.
This amendment aims to gut the SCOTUS and fools no one.
Regards from Rosie
They are appointed for life to prevent intimidation of losing votes for a reason................so they will not be tainted by the threat of losing their job..................It's not perfect...........and the vetting is not perfect............but the Founding Fathers did the best that could be done in this aspect............and I see no reason to change it.
And an even more interesting question- if that vote qouldnt be impartial due to politics.....that renders our entire legal system, i.e. the basis of a country, invalid and we're back to zero.
But wouldn't this assume that those lawyers and judges with sole power to vote for Supremes would be looking for judicial integrity and wisdom? Or would they be packing the court with justices who would make their own jobs easier and more profitable?
In my opinion all three branches are not functioning properly. That said, the answer is bring those we have a vote in changing back into compliance. Your President over stepping? Vote for one that supports the Constitution and anti activist judges/justices. Your Congressional representatives off reservation on Constitutional issues? Elect a different person.
As I read the arguments, it would prevent the tyranny of a very thin majority--a majority that can be obtained on the whims of self serving appointments--to impose the law on everybody and give the federal government power to declare what will be the law for everybody, even if that law is unconstitutional.
As I read the arguments, it would prevent the tyranny of a very thin majority--a majority that can be obtained on the whims of self serving appointments--to impose the law on everybody and give the federal government power to declare what will be the law for everybody, even if that law is unconstitutional.
I agree with you that the SCOTUS is out of control, but I am not convinced that the proposed amendment is a viable remedy. In light of statements by Roberts and Kennedy, both men should be immediately impeached. Roberts openly declared his contempt for the law and his unwillingness to follow duly constituted law. That we fail to employ the remedies already present in the Constitution to deal with an out of control court, does not point to a need to create more law.
I would however support a Constitutional amendment reversing Marbury v. Madison, striping the court of usurped power to declare broad swathes of law unconstitutional and thus legislating from the bench. The Court is charged in the Constitution with the application of law to cases, not the determination of the law itself. Constrain the court and return the duty of legislation to the Congress - where it belongs.
The Court issues opinions subject to human failings. One would think that SCOTUS decisions based on only the Constitution would be unanimous.No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.
But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?
And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?
What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?
Do you really not know the difference?
Do you really need us to explain the difference?
Yes, I guess I do need for somebody to explain the difference.
Okay
A dictatorship is the absolute rule by one person. No legislature, no courts- except as controlled by the Dictator. Dictators do not need to obey any law and are not subject to any law. A Dictator is not elected to be a dictator.
In our country- the Supreme Court is appointed by the President one by one- and confirmed by the Senate. Justice's do not select themselves. Nor does any Justice have absolute power- the Supreme Court can only act with a majority vote.
Nor does the Supreme Court have any ability to decide what laws it wants to review- the Supreme Court can only hear a case that has been heard by other courts. For instance- no matter how much a majority of Justice's may wish to decide who won the 2014 Superbowl- they have no legal ability to do so.
What the Supreme Court can do is decide on the Constitutionality of legislation that has passed, or criminal decisions reached by other courts. Justices are subject to the law- if they break the law, the Legislature can impeach them, and upon successful impeachment and conviction, they can then be tried for that crime.
The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through. There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution.
That is about as close to a dictatorship as it gets. We need to demand more protection for the American people.
The Court issues opinions subject to human failings. One would think that SCOTUS decisions based on only the Constitution would be unanimous.But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?
And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?
What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?
Do you really not know the difference?
Do you really need us to explain the difference?
Yes, I guess I do need for somebody to explain the difference.
Okay
A dictatorship is the absolute rule by one person. No legislature, no courts- except as controlled by the Dictator. Dictators do not need to obey any law and are not subject to any law. A Dictator is not elected to be a dictator.
In our country- the Supreme Court is appointed by the President one by one- and confirmed by the Senate. Justice's do not select themselves. Nor does any Justice have absolute power- the Supreme Court can only act with a majority vote.
Nor does the Supreme Court have any ability to decide what laws it wants to review- the Supreme Court can only hear a case that has been heard by other courts. For instance- no matter how much a majority of Justice's may wish to decide who won the 2014 Superbowl- they have no legal ability to do so.
What the Supreme Court can do is decide on the Constitutionality of legislation that has passed, or criminal decisions reached by other courts. Justices are subject to the law- if they break the law, the Legislature can impeach them, and upon successful impeachment and conviction, they can then be tried for that crime.
The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through. There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution.
That is about as close to a dictatorship as it gets. We need to demand more protection for the American people.
4-5 decisions are arbitrary and reflect politics instead of logic. When SCOTUS can interpret “through an Exchange established by the state.” to mean citizens in states with no exchange should get subsidies through the federal government, SCOTUS has become a joke. States should have a means of rectifying that.
