To: SeekAndFind
That would require a Constitutional convention, wouldn’t it ?
2 posted on
03/29/2015 6:42:37 PM PDT by
knarf
(I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
To: knarf
I think so.
I’d like to see Congress rein them in by declaring certain subjects off limits to the Court.
4 posted on
03/29/2015 6:44:56 PM PDT by
hlmencken3
(I paid for an argument, but you're just contradicting!)
To: knarf
“...That would require a Constitutional convention, wouldn’t it ?...”
-
NO, it would not require a Constitutional Convention.
But it would require a congressional amendment or an Article V amendment.
5 posted on
03/29/2015 6:45:58 PM PDT by
Repeal The 17th
("We The People" have met the enemy; and he is "We The People".)
To: knarf
That would require a Constitutional convention, wouldn’t it ? Just a Constitutional Amendment.
To: knarf
11 posted on
03/29/2015 6:53:51 PM PDT by
Perdogg
(I'm on a no Carb diet- NO Christie Ayotte Romney or Bush - stay outta da Bushesh)
To: knarf
You are kidding or is this comical?
13 posted on
03/29/2015 6:54:36 PM PDT by
Fungi
(Evolution: no science, no truth, no nothing. Full of faith, faith in the "god" of chance.)
To: knarf
The Constitution mentions “good behavior” but not life or any other tenure. Certainly by today’s standards term limits on the SC could be legislative. SC term limits have been seriously proposed a number of times.
15 posted on
03/29/2015 6:58:19 PM PDT by
hlmencken3
(I paid for an argument, but you're just contradicting!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson