Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. No where in the Constitution does it say how many justices need be on the Supreme Court. In theory the President and the Senate could just get together and appoint justices until the Supreme Court sees things their way.
I also believe that there should be a Constitutional amendment limiting the executive order power to only effect federal employees, his staff, and the district of columbia.
EO's should not effect everyone in the USA.
I agree. Sadly, the Founders didn't do enough to curb the powers of the Executive Branch. Too late to have a Constitutional Convention now, we'll end up with something far worse. Our second amendment will look like Mexico's right to bear arms: Article 10: The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have a right to arms in their homes, for security and legitimate defense, with the exception of arms prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law will determine the cases, conditions, requirements, and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized to the inhabitants.
If our 2nd Amendment looked like that, we wouldn't be allowed to own anything bigger than a pea shooter. They'd say, fine you can have the right to own a gun, but we're gonna make it really damn hard for you to exercise that right
Even considering the Court's decisions in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission I would be the last person on earth to advocate the politicalization of the federal courts. A supremely and astoundingly idiotic idea.
Adding further evidence to the conclusion that these politicians are nothing more than pandering idiots telling people what they think those people want to hear.
Governments, and people, don't voluntarily give up power. They extract as much as politically possible and then rinse and repeat.
Even considering the Court's decisions in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission I would be the last person on earth to advocate the politicalization of the federal courts. A supremely and astoundingly idiotic idea.
Nope. No where in the Constitution does it say how many justices need be on the Supreme Court. In theory the President and the Senate could just get together and appoint justices until the Supreme Court sees things their way.
Good point. Roosevelt hated having to adhere to the supreme court. He was wrong too.
Nope. No where in the Constitution does it say how many justices need be on the Supreme Court. In theory the President and the Senate could just get together and appoint justices until the Supreme Court sees things their way.
FD fricken R, man!
I get it now.
Course, Jury Nullification can have strategic impact if practiced intelligently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
