Packing the court is constitutional

[liberty656]

Everytime I hear the leftists say "packing the court is legal and constitutional" I don't really have a comeback for it. It technically is constitutional. The founders have done it before (Adams, Jefferson). If court packing is so bad, why didn't the founders set a permanent number of justices?

[r3volution 3.0]

The OP's right. It is Constitutional.

There has been a sort of gentleman's agreement for centuries to not do it, but the Congress can set the number of Justices by simple legislation.

Commissar Roosevelt threatened it, and the SCOTUS got real docile; it will be the same this time, I'd wager.

None of these current Justices have the nuts of those in the 30s (indeed, several have no nuts at all).

They will fold like a cheap suit.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether the court is actually packed or not.

The days when the court could really check the (more) political branches and defend the Constitution are long gone.

[Anti Federalist]

Everytime I hear the leftists say "packing the court is legal and constitutional" I don't really have a comeback for it. It technically is constitutional. The founders have done it before (Adams, Jefferson). If court packing is so bad, why didn't the founders set a permanent number of justices?

Why didn't they proscribe capital punishment for political officers that violate the bill of rights?

Can't think of everything I suppose.

I disagree with Rev 3.0

I think they, the Marxists, will most certainly "pack" the court.

We're on the track of Venezuela, and that was one of things that Chavez did 20 years ago to set the country on the course it is now.

Enjoy your wildebeest dinner.

[familydog]

Everytime I hear the leftists say "packing the court is legal and constitutional" I don't really have a comeback for it.

Sure, packing the court is Constitutional. However, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. I would simply ask them if they would accept Donald Trump packing the Court. Or, is that Constitutional power only reserved for leftists?

If court packing is so bad, why didn't the founders set a permanent number of justices?

On one hand, the Founders never intended nor imagined that the Court would become the most powerful branch of government. In fact, they argued it was the least powerful. On the other hand, Article 3 clearly states that Congress has complete control over every aspect of the federal judiciary. It can reign in the power of the Court at any moment. However, the Founders probably never imagined that Congress would defer all of their decision making to both the Executive and the Court.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Everytime I hear the leftists say "packing the court is legal and constitutional" I don't really have a comeback for it. It technically is constitutional. The founders have done it before (Adams, Jefferson). If court packing is so bad, why didn't the founders set a permanent number of justices?

Another Biden voter here?

[jmdrake]

Why didn't they proscribe capital punishment for political officers that violate the bill of rights?

Can't think of everything I suppose.

I disagree with Rev 3.0

I think they, the Marxists, will most certainly "pack" the court.

We're on the track of Venezuela, and that was one of things that Chavez did 20 years ago to set the country on the course it is now.

Enjoy your wildebeest dinner.

They'll need a majority in the senate and so far they don't have that.

[Contumacious]

The OP's right. It is Constitutional.

There has been a sort of gentleman's agreement for centuries to not do it, but the Congress can set the number of Justices by simple legislation.

Commissar Roosevelt threatened it, and the SCOTUS got real docile; it will be the same this time, I'd wager.

None of these current Justices have the nuts of those in the 30s (indeed, several have no nuts at all).

They will fold like a cheap suit.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether the court is actually packed or not.

The days when the court could really check the (more) political branches and defend the Constitution are long gone.

Respectfully disagree.

Back in 1787 , none of the political parties subscribed to Marxism.

Therefore packing the court with the intent of approving socialist measures is unconstitutional.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD.(concurring)

"If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness.

[464] "If the court sanctions the power of discriminating taxation, and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the Constitution," as said by one who has been all his life a student of our institutions, "it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our present government will commence." If the purely arbitrary limitation of $4000 in the present law can be sustained, none having less than that amount of income being assessed or taxed for the support of the government, the limitation of future Congresses may be fixed at a much larger sum, at five or ten or twenty thousand dollars, parties possessing an income of that amount alone being bound to bear the burdens of government; or the limitation may be designated at such an amount as a board of "walking delegates" may deem necessary. There is no safety in allowing the limitation to be adjusted except in strict compliance with the mandates of the Constitution which require its taxation, if imposed by direct taxes, to be apportioned among the States according to their representation, and if imposed by indirect taxes, to be uniform in operation and, so far as practicable, in proportion to their property, equal upon all citizens. Unless the rule of the Constitution governs, a majority may fix the limitation at such rate as will not include any of their own number."


POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY., 15 S. Ct. 673, 157 U.S. 429 (U.S. 04/08/1895)

.

[AngryCanadian]

If the liberals in America succeed packing the courts America will look like a European liberal country.

[Contumacious]

If the liberals in America succeed packing the courts America will look like a European liberal country.

Yup

[Sammy]

Is this zippy?

[r3volution 3.0]

Respectfully disagree.

Back in 1787 , none of the political parties subscribed to Marxism.

Therefore packing the court with the intent of approving socialist measures is unconstitutional.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD.(concurring)

"If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness.

[464] "If the court sanctions the power of discriminating taxation, and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the Constitution," as said by one who has been all his life a student of our institutions, "it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our present government will commence." If the purely arbitrary limitation of $4000 in the present law can be sustained, none having less than that amount of income being assessed or taxed for the support of the government, the limitation of future Congresses may be fixed at a much larger sum, at five or ten or twenty thousand dollars, parties possessing an income of that amount alone being bound to bear the burdens of government; or the limitation may be designated at such an amount as a board of "walking delegates" may deem necessary. There is no safety in allowing the limitation to be adjusted except in strict compliance with the mandates of the Constitution which require its taxation, if imposed by direct taxes, to be apportioned among the States according to their representation, and if imposed by indirect taxes, to be uniform in operation and, so far as practicable, in proportion to their property, equal upon all citizens. Unless the rule of the Constitution governs, a majority may fix the limitation at such rate as will not include any of their own number."


POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY., 15 S. Ct. 673, 157 U.S. 429 (U.S. 04/08/1895)

.

That an appointee may pursue unconstitutional policies doesn't make the appointment itself unconstitutional.

If you want to say that packing the court is a bad idea, sure, but it isn't unconstitutional.

[Contumacious]

That an appointee may pursue unconstitutional policies doesn't make the appointment itself unconstitutional.

If you want to say that packing the court is a bad idea, sure, but it isn't unconstitutional.

Respectfully Disagree

The Congress has no authority to do indirectly what they can not do directly


Constitutional Amendment Process




The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b

There is NO authority for activist justices to amend the constitution NONE

[r3volution 3.0]

Respectfully Disagree

The Congress has no authority to do indirectly what they can not do directly


Constitutional Amendment Process




The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b

There is NO authority for activist justices to amend the constitution NONE

That's right, but it doesn't follow that Congress lacks the authority to appoint the justices in the first place.

There's nothing in the Constitution to support that view.

[Sonny Tufts]

There is NO authority for activist justices to amend the constitution NONE

But there's plenty of authority for judges to determine how the Constitution applies to cases in which one of the parties raises a constitutional issue.

Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Judicial power includes the power to determine the law applicable in a case. Just because you disagree with the result a court reaches doesn't mean it didn't have the authority to make that determination.

[r3volution 3.0]

But there's plenty of authority for judges to determine how the Constitution applies to cases in which one of the parties raises a constitutional issue.

Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Judicial power includes the power to determine the law applicable in a case. Just because you disagree with the result a court reaches doesn't mean it didn't have the authority to make that determination.

That's the inner contradiction of the rule of law; whoever enforces the law effectively makes it.

[Anti Federalist]

If the liberals in America succeed packing the courts America will look like a European liberal country.

No, it will not.

I wouldn't be so worked up if we all of a sudden looked like Finland or Norway or Belgium.

What we will look like is a failed narco state like Mexico or Honduras or Venezuela where people are literally eating zoo animals to survive, and drug cartels routinely hang the corpses of their enemies off bridge overpasses, the bulk of people live in fetid slums matching the worst of Africa and the murder rate is over 50. (right now in the US it's around 5)

The hell of it is: most of these places were nice places 50-60 years ago.

Until the people, initially poisoned by Soviet propaganda and later poison from the same places that it is poisoning us, started to vote for and believe in, authoritarian Marxism as a valid political structure.

[Contumacious]

But there's plenty of authority for judges to determine how the Constitution applies to cases in which one of the parties raises a constitutional issue.

Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Judicial power includes the power to determine the law applicable in a case. Just because you disagree with the result a court reaches doesn't mean it didn't have the authority to make that determination.

WHAT?

Judicial power confers the authority to determine the law applicable in a case.

But it does not include the authority to legislate under the guise of interpretation.

A socialist Justice has no authority issue an order wherein he/she "concluded" that we do not have a right to bear arms.

If we don't support our NINTH AMENDMENT Freedoms who will ?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Sonny Tufts]

That's the inner contradiction of the rule of law; whoever enforces the law effectively makes it.

But courts don't have the power to enforce their own rulings; they must rely on the executive branch to do so. It's called separation of powers.

Of course, if you think the government is one homogeneous glob of people all of whom have the same agenda, then the answer to you is this question: who chooses the people who enforce the law?

[Sonny Tufts]

If we don't support our NINTH AMENDMENT Freedoms who will ?!?!?!?!?!?!?

For the problems with relying on the 9th Amendment to invalidate legislation, see all of the different opinions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/, and this comment: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment9.html

[Contumacious]

For the problems with relying on the 9th Amendment to invalidate legislation, see all of the different opinions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/, and this comment: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment9.html

It is IRRELEVANT whether the powers-that-be recognize that we have extra constitutional unalienable rights.

Like I stated earlier , socialist Justices would have no qualms declaring that we do not have a right to bear arms, Read the dissenters opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

.

[r3volution 3.0]

But courts don't have the power to enforce their own rulings; they must rely on the executive branch to do so. It's called separation of powers.

Of course, if you think the government is one homogeneous glob of people all of whom have the same agenda, then the answer to you is this question: who chooses the people who enforce the law?

There is necessarily some person or group of people whose interpretation of the law is final, and that person or group is therefore effectively above the law. This is true in every political system. In our system, where power is divided and officials are elected, directly or indirectly, it's not obvious who should count as being part of this group (just judges? judges and those who appoint judges? judges and those who appoint judges and those who appoint those who appoint judges?), but there can be no doubt that such a group exists. The very fact that law is enforced at all means that someone is finally, unappealably, enforcing it. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? No one, and it cannot possibly be otherwise.