Posted on 09/21/2020 9:18:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
When is it not?
The Constitution should not be on the ballot. What is being contested here must be utterly destroyed by force!
Adding new states is not unconstitutional, it has been done before.
Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional, it has been done before.
“You would think Democrats had learned their lesson.”
They are not chastened, because they know that they need to win just one more time, to seize power permanently, or at least until America resurrects after being driven into the ground.
RBG Has been given a pass for the damage she did to our United States Constitution and to our schools...a remarkable woman who tore, for decades, at the very fiber of our Republic.
Wait a minute. Who said it was?
Here’s an interesting question to play with....
If you were God deciding what to do next with America, would you want this next election to be about who is the better leader??? Or would you want it to be about Abortion?
Now... just to clarify, this question implies that God doesn’t know something, when clearly he does.... He knows everything past present future... It’s actually more about Us KNOWING where WE stand, so that when judgment comes we will have no excuse.
The article said “If that means shredding the parts of the Constitution that have held them back in the past, then so be it.”
If the Dems try to block his appointment and he wins the election and wins back the house, he should raise the number of Justices to 11.
FDR tried to pack the court but the Senate stopped him in 1937.
Or am I missing something?
.....would Carol Swain be good candidate for SCOTUS ??
“Adding new states is not unconstitutional, it has been done before.”
Contitution, Article 4, sec 3:
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
So the allowing of any state to split is at the hands of both houses of congress. And with the obvious distancing of the houses, it may make it through the house, but probably not through the senate.
Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional, it has been done before.
The U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court. After the Judiciary Act of 1869, sometimes called the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, a United States statute, provided that the Supreme Court of the United States would consist of the chief justice of the United States and eight associate justices, no new seats were changed. Adding justices to the court has been attempted during the FDR effort to try to pack the court for rulings on his new deal. The C.J. Act of 1869 remains the accepted practice of the court size today. So yes it’s been done before, but the effort was slammed shut with a no go even by FDR’s vice president to change the C.J. Act.
rwood
They have pushed the idea the Constitution is a "living document" to turn the Constitution into an effective nullity.
They have primarily been successful in this endeavor by the appointment of Progressive justices through democratic practices, because the founders did not envision a mass media dominated by a philosophy antethical to the idea of limited government.
It is quite possible to use Constitutional means to destroy the Constitution, as intended.
Giving DC statehood is not creating a new state, it is abolishing the Seat of Government of the United States.
Article 1 Section 8
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Congress would have to cede the power to make laws for the Seat of Government. This would require an amendment to the constitution.
It would probably be easier to give DC a senator and representative by amendment that to make it a state.
I’m guessing that if DC statehood goes forward it would not include the areas of federal infrastructure such as the White House and Capitol building. It would only include residential areas.
So is expelling them.
But, I would still say that making DC a state would take an amendment to the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.