Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kaslin

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.


4 posted on 09/21/2020 9:22:08 AM PDT by FewsOrange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: FewsOrange

Wait a minute. Who said it was?


7 posted on 09/21/2020 9:24:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: FewsOrange
Adding seats to the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional, it has been done before.

FDR tried to pack the court but the Senate stopped him in 1937.

Or am I missing something?

11 posted on 09/21/2020 9:34:03 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (If White Privilege is real, why did Elizabeth Warren lie about being an Indian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: FewsOrange

“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


13 posted on 09/21/2020 9:49:58 AM PDT by Redwood71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: FewsOrange
The Democrats have actively worked to render the Constitution ineffective for about 100 years.

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.

15 posted on 09/21/2020 9:57:22 AM PDT by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: FewsOrange
Adding new states is not unconstitutional, it has been done before.

So is expelling them.

18 posted on 09/21/2020 10:35:43 AM PDT by itsahoot (The ability to read auto correct is necessary to read my posts understanding them is another matter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: FewsOrange
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.

"We do not allow Trolls to be on this Website."

23 posted on 09/21/2020 11:19:35 AM PDT by TheConservativeTejano (God Bless Texas..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson