One of the things that has bothered me since I first became a citizen, is voting for judges and sheriffs. You are an exemplary lawyer, you have and share knowledge of the law and prosecution and defense. Your husband is a judge. While I love and respect the law and have considerable knowledg…
One of the things that has bothered me since I first became a citizen, is voting for judges and sheriffs. You are an exemplary lawyer, you have and share knowledge of the law and prosecution and defense. Your husband is a judge. While I love and respect the law and have considerable knowledge of the Constitution, I do not feel that I, and most voters have the requisite knowledge to select anyone to the judiciary. Same thing goes for law enforcement.
It is my contention that these positions should be in the hands of Civil Service, where persons of expertise could write the necessary requirements to fulfill the duties, not just adequately but definitively.
I think this should apply to Supreme Court Justices as well. Granted the majority of legislators have been attorneys in private life, but they are also partisan, and some are doctors, business people, military, etc.
Aileen Cannon is obviously unqualified to judgeship; as are Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Amy Coney Barrett. And trump isn't even qualified to be dogcatcher, let alone President; still he had the right toappoint three 'loyalists' to the Supreme Court.
The Constitution Article 3 is, in my opinion, the most opaquely written of all the Articles. We need some changes.
It is very interesting to study the legal and judicial systems of other countries. And their constitutions. There are all kinds of interesting things to discover. Sadly, the American constitution is too old. Constitutions drafted more recently address, sometimes pre-emptively, some of the problems one can anticipate in a modern society.
Be careful what you wish for. Some folks on the right have been calling for a Constitutional Convention, and we sure won’t like what they propose. They also control the majority of state legislators, and no Amendment can be ratified without approval by enough state legislators. Here’s what it takes: “An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.” Think we have that behind what we’d like to see done?
Unlike a single amendment that arises from and receives 2/3 votes in both houses of Congress, if they succeed in obtaining enough legislatures to support a Constitutional Convention, they won't be limited to a single issue that may have been their public reason for the need of amending the Constitution. We can expect, in the latter case, efforts to rewrite much if not most of the U.S. Constitution.
In my view, the only way to secure a sane balance of rights, responsibilities and economic protections for progressives, liberals and centrists in the foreseeable future is to divide the country into constitutional zones with differing rights. Conservative states would only sign on they could be exempt from such sanity. There'd have to a be a mechanism by which states could switch zones every 12 years or so, by popular vote. There would also be charities and subsidies that help people relocate on some kind of reciprocal basis. And experts on transitional law would be needed to help devise and apply rules about transitioning to a different set of constitutional rules. I doubt all this would happen. At least states are able, for now, to change their state constitutions in somewhat effective ways in response to right-wing extremist measures.
Thank you, Joyce, you are a treasure to us all.
One of the things that has bothered me since I first became a citizen, is voting for judges and sheriffs. You are an exemplary lawyer, you have and share knowledge of the law and prosecution and defense. Your husband is a judge. While I love and respect the law and have considerable knowledge of the Constitution, I do not feel that I, and most voters have the requisite knowledge to select anyone to the judiciary. Same thing goes for law enforcement.
It is my contention that these positions should be in the hands of Civil Service, where persons of expertise could write the necessary requirements to fulfill the duties, not just adequately but definitively.
I think this should apply to Supreme Court Justices as well. Granted the majority of legislators have been attorneys in private life, but they are also partisan, and some are doctors, business people, military, etc.
Aileen Cannon is obviously unqualified to judgeship; as are Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Amy Coney Barrett. And trump isn't even qualified to be dogcatcher, let alone President; still he had the right toappoint three 'loyalists' to the Supreme Court.
The Constitution Article 3 is, in my opinion, the most opaquely written of all the Articles. We need some changes.
It is very interesting to study the legal and judicial systems of other countries. And their constitutions. There are all kinds of interesting things to discover. Sadly, the American constitution is too old. Constitutions drafted more recently address, sometimes pre-emptively, some of the problems one can anticipate in a modern society.
Hmm. Maybe the constitution needs another amendment or two.
Seems like there are a number quirks and sinkholes in our constitution.
Be careful what you wish for. Some folks on the right have been calling for a Constitutional Convention, and we sure won’t like what they propose. They also control the majority of state legislators, and no Amendment can be ratified without approval by enough state legislators. Here’s what it takes: “An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.” Think we have that behind what we’d like to see done?
Unlike a single amendment that arises from and receives 2/3 votes in both houses of Congress, if they succeed in obtaining enough legislatures to support a Constitutional Convention, they won't be limited to a single issue that may have been their public reason for the need of amending the Constitution. We can expect, in the latter case, efforts to rewrite much if not most of the U.S. Constitution.
In my view, the only way to secure a sane balance of rights, responsibilities and economic protections for progressives, liberals and centrists in the foreseeable future is to divide the country into constitutional zones with differing rights. Conservative states would only sign on they could be exempt from such sanity. There'd have to a be a mechanism by which states could switch zones every 12 years or so, by popular vote. There would also be charities and subsidies that help people relocate on some kind of reciprocal basis. And experts on transitional law would be needed to help devise and apply rules about transitioning to a different set of constitutional rules. I doubt all this would happen. At least states are able, for now, to change their state constitutions in somewhat effective ways in response to right-wing extremist measures.
We need lots of votes for blue Fay. Enough to bury the gerrymander.
Absolutely agree Frankom. This is the time we have to bury MAGA so deep in votes they never survive