Give the states nomination power for Supreme Court justices ??? Each of the candidates in both the Republican and Democrat debates have articulated their platforms through promising a...

Observing

Each of the candidates in both the Republican and Democrat debates have articulated their platforms through promising a bunch of I wills, which is political speak for use (and abuse) of unilateral executive action. Though there is now precedent because prior presidential administrations overreached their constitutional authority, precedent does not equal constitutional license.

The Convention of States Project seeks to use the legal mechanism provided in Article V of the U.S. Constitution to reign in the federal government through several key procedural amendments so that the highest executive office cannot usurp its actual constitutional authority.

One of these potential procedural changes could be an amendment to give the states nomination power for Supreme Court justices.

Excerpt from a post on Convention of States website.by Jenna Ellis, Esq. on March 08, 2016

What do you think ????

righty Loc: Tenn

Observing wrote:

Each of the candidates in both the Republican and ... (show quote)

Well, that would/could be a lot of nominations... In Obamss math, that would be 57. I have never agreed with the President picking any justices. They should be elected, thus being able to have their butts tossed out if they go rogue like we have seen the last couple of years.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Observing wrote:

Each of the candidates in both the Republican and ... (show quote)

There are 27 amendments to the Constitution. Approximately 11,623 measures have been proposed to amend the Constitution from 1789 through December 16, 2014. The odds are against any proposed amendment passing. But, I say: What can proposing such amendment hurt :?: Although I am opposed to such, I can readily accept results of any attempt at the difficult process of approving or disapproving of one.

I am continually amazed at the arguing of originalists Vs. living constitutionalists regarding the judicial translation/interpretation of our Constitution. Few seem content with SCOTUS decisions...often based on ideological differences. The original concept of proposing amendments frames the argument for a living constitution, IMO. But then, given the lack of consensus in today's political climate, could our representatives ever reach an accord such the original forefathers did in any refining of the U.S. Constitution? I seriously doubt it. :|

Observing

righty wrote:

Well, that would/could be a lot of nominations... In Obamss math, that would be 57. I have never agreed with the President picking any justices. They should be elected, thus being able to have their butts tossed out if they go rogue like we have seen the last couple of years.

Ah, so you would also eliminate the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices. Interesting concept with lots of pros and cons and a definitely impact on the Washington power structure as it exists today.

Observing

slatten49 wrote:

There are 27 amendments to the Constitution. Appro... (show quote)

So aside from whether we should, you doubt we could convene an Article V Convention. Delays and contentions over the current attempts to convene one seem to support your conclusion. The ongoing delay raises two serious questions to be considered. Are the obstacles in calling an Article V Convention due to special interest manipulations or different constitutional interpretations? What is the likelihood that an Article V would be misused?

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Observing wrote:

So aside from whether we should, you doubt we could convene an Article V Convention. Delays and contentions over the current attempts to convene one seem to support your conclusion. The ongoing delay raises two serious questions to be considered. Are the obstacles in calling an Article V Convention due to special interest manipulations or different constitutional interpretations? What is the likelihood that an Article V would be misused?

The article I posted in my thread, 'Doing the math for a new Constitutional Convention,' should shed some light on the process.

rebob14

Observing wrote:

Each of the candidates in both the Republican and ... (show quote)

No lifetime appointments.

jer48 Loc: perris ca

rebob14 wrote:

No lifetime appointments.

agree term limits ( short term limits )

Observing

slatten49 wrote:

The article I posted in my thread, 'Doing the math for a new Constitutional Convention,' should shed some light on the process.

Read it.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Observing

rebob14 wrote:

No lifetime appointments.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Observing

jer48 wrote:

agree term limits ( short term limits )

Imagine if that ever came to pass, it would seriously impact the Washington political power gridlock.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Observing wrote:

Each of the candidates in both the Republican and ... (show quote)

Observing: The repeal of the 17 Amendment will bring power back to the States to control their Senators, like it was prior to 1913! State Senates had complete control over electing their US Senators. Senators now only need the support of the voters, which they can control with lobby and party money! Repeal of the 17th will give the State Senates the power to immediately recall the bastards if they don't support State rights! This scares the shit out of democrats!

Observing

ldsuttonjr wrote:

Observing: The repeal of the 17 Amendment will bring power back to the States to control their Senators, like it was prior to 1913! State Senates had complete control over electing their US Senators. Senators now only need the support of the voters, which they can control with lobby and party money! Repeal of the 17th will give the State Senates the power to immediately recall the bastards if they don't support State rights! This scares the shit out of democrats!

IdSutton,

The topic was Supreme Court justice nominations.

Your points on repeal of the 17th are well stated. But, to repeal the 17th you need a Article V COS to address it, or the Senators to fall on their swords and support repeal of the 17th, neither is likely to happen. There are several threads on the Repeal of the 17th but you could start another one, or maybe someone will respond to your repeal the 17th points via this thread.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: