CDZ Federal Judge Says Constitution is outdated

[oldsoul]

At some point, you’ve got to trust the President who is duly elected by the people

I trust the OFFICE, I do not trust the man sitting there currently. He has shown too many times he has no reservations about circumventing the Constitution when it suits his agenda.

 

[Votto]

The current system promotes gridlock because of the partisanship of the idiots who keep electing partisan idiots . Unless you give one party ALL the power in which case the Senate would simply rubber stamp their President's pick .

Under MY proposal, Obama and Ryan would have been forced to work together to choose a candidate and the Senate would have been forced to vote.

Further, this prevents President from choosing candidates who are either too far left or too far right, depending on their own political leanings, and provides for a more even keeled, less political judicial.

No.

The current system promotes gridlock because the Constitution is silent on a great many matters. It is my opinion that the framers could not imagine a state of affairs to where an elected body would simply choose not to fulfill their duties. So we need to give voice to the Constitution where it is lacking. The courts are just one area to where this truth is evident.

As for your proposal…Whenever you mention “parties”, you’re nowhere because we have several parties in the nation already. If the libertarians ever get around to wbeing serious, they could be a force. What then? Do we have to notify them too or the most prevalent opposition party to the President? Next, if you’re going to have the Senate vote up or down on the selection, it’s largely no different than the current selection process. The only thing that is different is that you’re taking away the Senate’s “advise” functionality.

At some point, you’ve got to trust the President who is duly elected by the people

The Founding Fathers tried to create a limited government dingleberry, that is why they created so many checks and balances and why they gave so few roles for those in government.

They thought that people should be allowed to live their lives in peace instead of being tinkered with 24/7 by the media and government.

 

[JoeMoma]

The current system promotes gridlock because of the partisanship of the idiots who keep electing partisan idiots . Unless you give one party ALL the power in which case the Senate would simply rubber stamp their President's pick .

Under MY proposal, Obama and Ryan would have been forced to work together to choose a candidate and the Senate would have been forced to vote.

Further, this prevents President from choosing candidates who are either too far left or too far right, depending on their own political leanings, and provides for a more even keeled, less political judicial.

No.

The current system promotes gridlock because the Constitution is silent on a great many matters. It is my opinion that the framers could not imagine a state of affairs to where an elected body would simply choose not to fulfill their duties. So we need to give voice to the Constitution where it is lacking. The courts are just one area to where this truth is evident.

As for your proposal…Whenever you mention “parties”, you’re nowhere because we have several parties in the nation already. If the libertarians ever get around to wbeing serious, they could be a force. What then? Do we have to notify them too or the most prevalent opposition party to the President? Next, if you’re going to have the Senate vote up or down on the selection, it’s largely no different than the current selection process. The only thing that is different is that you’re taking away the Senate’s “advise” functionality.

At some point, you’ve got to trust the President who is duly elected by the people

The Constitution is silent on many things. That is one reason for the tenth amendment; however, the tenth amendment was thrown out the window many years ago.

 

[2aguy]

Good to see someone being honest.....now of course there are many naive and misguided souls out there that still believe the constitution protects them....I refer them to George W. Bush aka "they keep shoving the constitution in my face....the constitution is just a g.d. piece of paper"

Many Presidents have violated the constitution and none more so than the present one....ramifications? None.

Veteran Federal Judge’s Stunning Declaration About the Constitution

“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century,” he continued. “Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.” Pulled from referenced article.

"The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed." According to
Primary Documents in American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)14thamendment.html

"The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Formally abolishing slavery in the United States, the 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865." also from the Library of congress. 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)

So, I guess in Richard Posner's opinion, slavery is still legal.
He should be removed from the bench immediately for mental incompetency.

Wow...we agree.....he is probably senile...or a lefty...it is hard to tell the difference between the two conditions....

 

[2aguy]

The current system promotes gridlock because of the partisanship of the idiots who keep electing partisan idiots . Unless you give one party ALL the power in which case the Senate would simply rubber stamp their President's pick .

Under MY proposal, Obama and Ryan would have been forced to work together to choose a candidate and the Senate would have been forced to vote.

Further, this prevents President from choosing candidates who are either too far left or too far right, depending on their own political leanings, and provides for a more even keeled, less political judicial.

No.

The current system promotes gridlock because the Constitution is silent on a great many matters. It is my opinion that the framers could not imagine a state of affairs to where an elected body would simply choose not to fulfill their duties. So we need to give voice to the Constitution where it is lacking. The courts are just one area to where this truth is evident.

As for your proposal…Whenever you mention “parties”, you’re nowhere because we have several parties in the nation already. If the libertarians ever get around to wbeing serious, they could be a force. What then? Do we have to notify them too or the most prevalent opposition party to the President? Next, if you’re going to have the Senate vote up or down on the selection, it’s largely no different than the current selection process. The only thing that is different is that you’re taking away the Senate’s “advise” functionality.

At some point, you’ve got to trust the President who is duly elected by the people

As was stated...the Founders knew exactly what they were doing...they wanted as many roadblocks in the way as they could find.....concentration of power led to tyranny, they knew that and tried to plan for it for future generations....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The current system promotes gridlock because of the partisanship of the idiots who keep electing partisan idiots . Unless you give one party ALL the power in which case the Senate would simply rubber stamp their President's pick .

Under MY proposal, Obama and Ryan would have been forced to work together to choose a candidate and the Senate would have been forced to vote.

Further, this prevents President from choosing candidates who are either too far left or too far right, depending on their own political leanings, and provides for a more even keeled, less political judicial.

No.

The current system promotes gridlock because the Constitution is silent on a great many matters. It is my opinion that the framers could not imagine a state of affairs to where an elected body would simply choose not to fulfill their duties. So we need to give voice to the Constitution where it is lacking. The courts are just one area to where this truth is evident.

As for your proposal…Whenever you mention “parties”, you’re nowhere because we have several parties in the nation already. If the libertarians ever get around to wbeing serious, they could be a force. What then? Do we have to notify them too or the most prevalent opposition party to the President? Next, if you’re going to have the Senate vote up or down on the selection, it’s largely no different than the current selection process. The only thing that is different is that you’re taking away the Senate’s “advise” functionality.

At some point, you’ve got to trust the President who is duly elected by the people

As was stated...the Founders knew exactly what they were doing...they wanted as many roadblocks in the way as they could find.....concentration of power led to tyranny, they knew that and tried to plan for it for future generations....

Also, at no point do I trust the President , or anyone else in power, for the simple reason that I see everyday what sort of morons are voting for these pea brains. I don't give a shit which party they are in either, Congress is chock full of IDIOTS I'd like to chuck them all out and start over with one simple addition. If you have served in any capacity OR been employed at the highest level of government in ANY capacity, you are ineligible for same. ALL new blood.

 

[Sundance508]

At some point, you’ve got to trust the President who is duly elected by the people

I trust the OFFICE, I do not trust the man sitting there currently. He has shown too many times he has no reservations about circumventing the Constitution when it suits his agenda.

Any president can render the constitution irrelevant and several have....if there is no one willing to enforce the Constitution then it is just a piece of paper.

At best it has just become sort of a guide-line without any real relevance.


Is Our Constitution Already Dead

 

[Picaro]

The Supremacy clause has been radically abused for a long time.

 

[candycorn]

At some point, you’ve got to trust the President who is duly elected by the people

I trust the OFFICE, I do not trust the man sitting there currently. He has shown too many times he has no reservations about circumventing the Constitution when it suits his agenda.

I would imagine outside of Washington, there has been a fair amount of distrust for all who have held the office.

Tough tacos. In the end, the President nominates and the Senate approves. At some point you have to trust the President to select and the Senate to approve.

 

[candycorn]

The current system promotes gridlock because of the partisanship of the idiots who keep electing partisan idiots . Unless you give one party ALL the power in which case the Senate would simply rubber stamp their President's pick .

Under MY proposal, Obama and Ryan would have been forced to work together to choose a candidate and the Senate would have been forced to vote.

Further, this prevents President from choosing candidates who are either too far left or too far right, depending on their own political leanings, and provides for a more even keeled, less political judicial.

No.

The current system promotes gridlock because the Constitution is silent on a great many matters. It is my opinion that the framers could not imagine a state of affairs to where an elected body would simply choose not to fulfill their duties. So we need to give voice to the Constitution where it is lacking. The courts are just one area to where this truth is evident.

As for your proposal…Whenever you mention “parties”, you’re nowhere because we have several parties in the nation already. If the libertarians ever get around to wbeing serious, they could be a force. What then? Do we have to notify them too or the most prevalent opposition party to the President? Next, if you’re going to have the Senate vote up or down on the selection, it’s largely no different than the current selection process. The only thing that is different is that you’re taking away the Senate’s “advise” functionality.

At some point, you’ve got to trust the President who is duly elected by the people

The Founding Fathers tried to create a limited government dingleberry, that is why they created so many checks and balances and why they gave so few roles for those in government.

And the governement is so limited that when they do not show up to do their job, there is nothing in the founding documents to compel them to do their job, right?
This is why we need to add voice to the document to force those who sought the jobs to do their jobs.

Likely because, in my opinion, the framers would never have imagined that there would be people who sought the office who would show disdain for their duty.

They thought that people should be allowed to live their lives in peace instead of being tinkered with 24/7 by the media and government.

Which is why the Supreme Court shot down the invasive, illegal, immoral, and insulting Texas Abortion laws and in fact (if not in practice yet) overturned similiarly invasive, illegal, immoral, and insulting laws in 20 other states. The Supreme Court is keeping the government limited.

Can't wait until HRC can nominte some more justices to strengthen the powers that want to roll back things like Citizens United.

 

[candycorn]

The Constitution is silent on many things. That is one reason for the tenth amendment; however, the tenth amendment was thrown out the window many years ago.

Right you are. And it's a travesty but there needs to be rules put in place for the House, the Senate, the Executive, and the Supreme Court so that all parties know what the rules are and they don't change when a particular branch is under new or shared management.

I'm saying stuff like the following:

If the House passes a bill and sends it to the Senate, the Senate has 30 days (or whatever) to vote on it up or down--all 100 members. Now, that will mean this: There will NEVER be a bill that is approved directly from the House. If, for no other reason, the Senate wants to consider it's own work. But that shows the electorate where their Senators stands on an issue. If the House resolution calls for a $15 minimum wage, and you are against it but both your Senators Smith and Johnson voted for it...well, you can keep that in mind when you go to the voting booth. Currently, the Senate Majority Leader send the bill to a committee where it dies a quite death and you are left in the dark as to where your Senators stand. Can you find out? Sure if you want to wade through a 400-500 word answer that will range from tax reform to employee training to China to immigration to, of course, Obama.
After it is voted down, the Senate can start up their own work and, if passed, is sent to the House to where it gets and up-down vote in 30 days too. Once that is killed, House/Senate conferees work out the differences and a bill is sent to the Executive.
The key is to give the voters a clear view of what their Senators and Representatives are for and against.

For the Executive, the President has 30 days to fill vacancies in the courts, cabinet offices, bureaus, etc... Anything that requires Senatorial consent has to be nominated in 30 days. The Senate then has 60 days to schedule an up or down vote on all nominees. This would likely result in several rejections but the people deserve to have a fully functioning government.

For the Supreme Court, there has got to be some term limits imposed at some point. And keep in mind, I'm saying this basking in the afterglow of the most important decision the Court has made since Roe concerning Abortion and the one justice most responsible for the demise of Texas's anti-abortion bill was the oldest member of the court Ginsberg who absoultly castrated the Texas Solicitor General on the floor of the Supreme Court. Still, the technological advances alone are such that if you're going to be in your 80's during your term...you shouldn't be nominaed. I'm open to a rule that has a mandatory retirement age, term limits that assure each president gets to nominte 2 or 3 justices...etc. It would make deaths of seated justices more rare and, again, allow some predictability to the process.

None of what I prescribe make for a more invasive government...just removes the gamesmanship from the bodies.

 

[norwegen]

It's about time. Now that Amendment XXVI is outdated, let's keep those retarded college students away from the polls.

 

[Agit8r]

Good to see someone being honest.....now of course there are many naive and misguided souls out there that still believe the constitution protects them....I refer them to George W. Bush aka "they keep shoving the constitution in my face....the constitution is just a g.d. piece of paper"

Many Presidents have violated the constitution and none more so than the present one....ramifications? None.

Veteran Federal Judge’s Stunning Declaration About the Constitution

Sounds like Jefferson

To James Madison Paris, Sep. 6, 1789 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Thus will end the democratic republic as the promise to the people is treated as little more than kindling by those who lead.

*****SAD SMILE*****

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thus will end the democratic republic as the promise to the people is treated as little more than kindling by those who lead.

*****SAD SMILE*****

Earlier, the Republicans wanted a reading of the Constitution in Congress....

"Other lawmakers decried the exercise altogether, saying the Constitution is a living document that shouldn't be followed to the letter.

"They are reading it like a sacred text," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the former chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, told The Washington Post.

Nadler derided what he called the "ritualistic reading" as "total nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to give Republicans claim to the document. He argued that the Founders were not "demigods" and that the document's needs for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was "highly imperfect."
Purpose Behind Congressional Reading of Constitution Questioned After Amendments Are Omitted | Fox News

 

[Sundance508]

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The Constitution is silent on many things. That is one reason for the tenth amendment; however, the tenth amendment was thrown out the window many years ago.

Right you are. And it's a travesty but there needs to be rules put in place for the House, the Senate, the Executive, and the Supreme Court so that all parties know what the rules are and they don't change when a particular branch is under new or shared management.

I'm saying stuff like the following:

If the House passes a bill and sends it to the Senate, the Senate has 30 days (or whatever) to vote on it up or down--all 100 members. Now, that will mean this: There will NEVER be a bill that is approved directly from the House. If, for no other reason, the Senate wants to consider it's own work. But that shows the electorate where their Senators stands on an issue. If the House resolution calls for a $15 minimum wage, and you are against it but both your Senators Smith and Johnson voted for it...well, you can keep that in mind when you go to the voting booth. Currently, the Senate Majority Leader send the bill to a committee where it dies a quite death and you are left in the dark as to where your Senators stand. Can you find out? Sure if you want to wade through a 400-500 word answer that will range from tax reform to employee training to China to immigration to, of course, Obama.
After it is voted down, the Senate can start up their own work and, if passed, is sent to the House to where it gets and up-down vote in 30 days too. Once that is killed, House/Senate conferees work out the differences and a bill is sent to the Executive.
The key is to give the voters a clear view of what their Senators and Representatives are for and against.

For the Executive, the President has 30 days to fill vacancies in the courts, cabinet offices, bureaus, etc... Anything that requires Senatorial consent has to be nominated in 30 days. The Senate then has 60 days to schedule an up or down vote on all nominees. This would likely result in several rejections but the people deserve to have a fully functioning government.

For the Supreme Court, there has got to be some term limits imposed at some point. And keep in mind, I'm saying this basking in the afterglow of the most important decision the Court has made since Roe concerning Abortion and the one justice most responsible for the demise of Texas's anti-abortion bill was the oldest member of the court Ginsberg who absoultly castrated the Texas Solicitor General on the floor of the Supreme Court. Still, the technological advances alone are such that if you're going to be in your 80's during your term...you shouldn't be nominaed. I'm open to a rule that has a mandatory retirement age, term limits that assure each president gets to nominte 2 or 3 justices...etc. It would make deaths of seated justices more rare and, again, allow some predictability to the process.

None of what I prescribe make for a more invasive government...just removes the gamesmanship from the bodies.

BEST post I've read from you. For real would love to see more non partisan opinions from you like this.

On the subject of federal judges, including SCOTUS, I agree.I mean how many times in the last oh 15 years have we had situations where a SCOTUS Justice is on their death beds, and we all know there is NO WAY they could possibly be doing their jobs, but they won't retire because the President is a liberal while they are a conservative or vice versa? That's sad.

Truth be told, I'd suggest similar for President and or Congressmen. Hillary and Trump are both too old. That is just fact.

 

[Sundance508]

The Constitution is silent on many things. That is one reason for the tenth amendment; however, the tenth amendment was thrown out the window many years ago.

Right you are. And it's a travesty but there needs to be rules put in place for the House, the Senate, the Executive, and the Supreme Court so that all parties know what the rules are and they don't change when a particular branch is under new or shared management.

I'm saying stuff like the following:

If the House passes a bill and sends it to the Senate, the Senate has 30 days (or whatever) to vote on it up or down--all 100 members. Now, that will mean this: There will NEVER be a bill that is approved directly from the House. If, for no other reason, the Senate wants to consider it's own work. But that shows the electorate where their Senators stands on an issue. If the House resolution calls for a $15 minimum wage, and you are against it but both your Senators Smith and Johnson voted for it...well, you can keep that in mind when you go to the voting booth. Currently, the Senate Majority Leader send the bill to a committee where it dies a quite death and you are left in the dark as to where your Senators stand. Can you find out? Sure if you want to wade through a 400-500 word answer that will range from tax reform to employee training to China to immigration to, of course, Obama.
After it is voted down, the Senate can start up their own work and, if passed, is sent to the House to where it gets and up-down vote in 30 days too. Once that is killed, House/Senate conferees work out the differences and a bill is sent to the Executive.
The key is to give the voters a clear view of what their Senators and Representatives are for and against.

For the Executive, the President has 30 days to fill vacancies in the courts, cabinet offices, bureaus, etc... Anything that requires Senatorial consent has to be nominated in 30 days. The Senate then has 60 days to schedule an up or down vote on all nominees. This would likely result in several rejections but the people deserve to have a fully functioning government.

For the Supreme Court, there has got to be some term limits imposed at some point. And keep in mind, I'm saying this basking in the afterglow of the most important decision the Court has made since Roe concerning Abortion and the one justice most responsible for the demise of Texas's anti-abortion bill was the oldest member of the court Ginsberg who absoultly castrated the Texas Solicitor General on the floor of the Supreme Court. Still, the technological advances alone are such that if you're going to be in your 80's during your term...you shouldn't be nominaed. I'm open to a rule that has a mandatory retirement age, term limits that assure each president gets to nominte 2 or 3 justices...etc. It would make deaths of seated justices more rare and, again, allow some predictability to the process.

None of what I prescribe make for a more invasive government...just removes the gamesmanship from the bodies.

BEST post I've read from you. For real would love to see more non partisan opinions from you like this.

On the subject of federal judges, including SCOTUS, I agree.I mean how many times in the last oh 15 years have we had situations where a SCOTUS Justice is on their death beds, and we all know there is NO WAY they could possibly be doing their jobs, but they won't retire because the President is a liberal while they are a conservative or vice versa? That's sad.

Truth be told, I'd suggest similar for President and or Congressmen. Hillary and Trump are both too old. That is just fact.

Some age better than others...hillary has health problems...just had a fall not long ago and suffered a concussion...and she has been having terrible coughing fits.....on the other hand Trump seems very vigorous, lots of energy and no known health problems.....plus it is well known he is a very, very hard worker which will be quite a change from obama who has spent most of his time on the golf course and or on vacation....a worthless slacker.