Posted on 10/22/2020 8:45:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
An Article V convention could circumvent the House and Senate if this is something that becomes popular enough. I wonder if there would be enough states that would ratify though. I can think of 15 unlikely to ratify: ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, RI, NY, NJ, DE, MD, CA, OR, WA, HI and IL. At least three of those would have to ratify, assuming all other states ratify as well.
It has no hope but get Dems on record voting against it.
The Court is not working fine. It's acting as a super legislature when the Constitution, Article I, Section 1, says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress . . .."
This means NO legislative powers are granted to either the Courts or the Executive. Thus, the Courts do not have the power to invalidate laws.
The Supreme Court is power-drunk out of control. E.g., Obergefell v. Hodges , among many others. QED.
The author obviously didn’t read what she wrote before she she send it Townhall.com, otherwise she would have noticed the mistake and corrected it. If I notice a mistake or typo I correct it, because mistakes and typos do happen.
Agreed. Not working fine.
I think Mark Levin said it best.
The Roberts court is “A disaster. Rudderless.”
A very good idea that would win instant acceptance in the States.
So important, yet sleepy stink finger gropey Joe Biden is not being asked if he will pack the court if he wins.
Yeah, I was thinking that.
We’re about a likely to get such an amendment protecting the Supreme Court voted in as Nance is to get her ‘sick president’ bill.
More ridiculous posturing by a Senator doing what they all do best - dishing out BS.
You seriously think there are 67 votes in the Senate and 291 votes in the House to send this to the States?
There will be 291 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate to pass this Amendment approximately...never.
The Constitution of the United States grants Congress the authority to set the size of the Supreme Court through legislation.
Therefore, a Bill (presuming it becomes a law) expanding the size of the Court (or reducing it) could hardly be said to be "destroying the Constitution", since such a law would be perfectly Constitutional.
What you are saying is what I am seeing and what WE are experiencing, typos and errors because we no longer put 'copy' into the in-basket of another pair of eyes for proofing! The internet is a new paradigm, largely self-editing and we see, all too often, why the old process, for all of its flaws, had some very good things as well.
Any writer worth reading is enthusiastic about getting something written and out to where it will be read. If the writer had the abilities of the second coming then all would be roses! Instead we all flub and err and coat our screens with white-out (should I capitalize this?) WHEN we have the time and are contentious and love the language and ..., you get the idea!
My GRIPE is that we, as in ALL OF US, have let the medium of the internet lead us into bad habits of fact errors (here), homonym errors (to/two/too) and such that would make any of my 9th Grade Teachers pour red ink and don't get me started about someone like Harold Ross (New Yorker Magazine founder 1925).
Now returning to my cave, muttering and wincing!
They need to add if it is OK for the court to rule while vacancies are being filled.
First, Jim Noble, I didn’t claim that setting the size of the SCOTUS is “destroying the Constitution.”
The Demonicrat political party seeks to destroy the Constitution by packing the SCOTUS with so many leftist justices, who will pervert the Constitution with their radical anti-American socialist views, that any conservative view will only appear, if at all, in minority opinions.
-PJ
Democrats will vote against it, so it won’t pass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.