The Scene: A small office building in Philadelphia sometime in late 1786:
Alexander Hamilton: "Okay people, one last reading before we send this section to the printers. (sighs and rubs eyes) Article two, section two now reads:
The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
AH: "Did Livingston get back from Jersey yet?"
Pierce Butler: "No. It takes a week, I told you that."
AH: His wife makes the best muffins. Now where were we?
James Madison: Buddy Butler over there was worried about what happens when a Supreme Court justice dies during the time period the president is running for election.
PB: Let's just assume the worst case scenario. Something so crazy it's almost impossible to believe. (Leans back in chair and lights pipe). Let's say some black guy, born in Africa somehow fakes his birth certificate because his white mother knows at birth he will run for president someday and he makes it into office.
(Loud guffawing in the room)
PB (holds up hands to get quiet) "Just bear with me here. And lets say his election is so divisive that nothing gets done and during the time he is running for re-election...no, lets make it better, at the end of his seventh year, a supreme court justice is killed in a cattle hijacking shoot-out, and immediately the Whigs starting putting out the word that the next president should be the one to make an appointment. How do we handle that?"
Nathaniel Gorham: Why not be totally crazy and say in the new election a former first lady is running for president along with a bunch of nuts and one really rich guy?
(Lots of laughter)
PB: "Be that as it may, we need to change the text. I'm thinking it should read (puts on monocle and clears throat) 'The President shall have the power, with advice and consent of the senate...blah blah yada yada yada to appoint Supreme Court Justices unless the president shall be 1) black and 2) in the last year of his term.'
Rufus King whispering to Roger Sherman "I don't know about you but I find it completely disrespectful to yada yada yada the federal constitution."
Roger Sherman : I once yada yada yada'd the price of hogs I was bringing to market. Will never do that again. Lost like eight dollars."
Ben Franklin (the oldest signer of the constitution, passes some gas loudly and then burps) "A black president. A woman running for president. What kind of country are we going to have in 1900? (Turns to William Few) Mr. Few. I say with all this fanciful talk you might as well chip in and say what about if there is a peanut farmer from Georgia as president? They grow peanuts in your state don't they?"
William Few: "Indeed they do sir. The finest in the land."
PB: "Okay, resolved, some presidents will lose the authority to appoint supreme court justices and ambassadors during their last year in office."
(Just then there is an enormous ruckus outside and everyone except Benjamin Franklin, who appears to have fallen asleep runs to a window in time to see William Livingston return and get out of his carriage. The Pipe Pierce Butler had been smoking was set down on some paper on the table and the table goes up in flames)
WIlliam Few: "Fire! Fire! Everybody out of the building."
As the fire spreads Benjamin Franklin is the last to leave the room. Before he leaves he reaches into his pocket and pulls out a match and lights it and sets it to some papers in a book case and mutters to himself: "They want to amend article to two to stop some black president in the future from making an appointment to the supreme court? I've never heard of a worse bunch of malarkey,"
William Livingston bursts in to stairwell as everyone is running down to get out of the building: What did I miss?
And that's how Article II was NOT amended to prevent President Obama from appointing a justice to replace Justice Scalia.
ReplyDeleteAnd all this time I thought the term yada, yada, yada originated with SEINFELD.
CAP OUT
Captain4Justice@gmail.con
Pure Genius
ReplyDeletezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
ReplyDeleteClassic. Best post in ages.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution DOES NOT say Obama has the authority to appoint. It says "... [the president] shall NOMINATE, and by and with the Advice AND CONSENT of the Senate, shall appoint..." There are commas and it does involve the ability to read and know what the commas do to the text so maybe that's your problem, loser.
ReplyDeleteCircle K
The President, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the supreme Court. Article 2, section 2.
ReplyDeleteAs a self avowed orignialist, Justice Scalia would affirm the President's power to appoint. It is likely that the President will make the appointment.
The Senate has its power of advice and consent. It is unlikely that the Senate will consent to any Obama's appointment, however.
Sad. Of course, the Dems will claim obstruction and dereliction of duty. Look out for spin doctors.
Circle K you are that person that reads something aloud, and then argues that it does not mean what it says. You then read it aloud but slower a second time, still not comprehending what you read. Just for shits and giggles please do tell us what the commas mean?
ReplyDeleteI guess you would also make the argument that Hillary CANNOT be president because the Constitution repeatedly refers to the president as "He." Thanks for reassuring us that the electorate is intelligent.
Nothing in the US Con about there being nine Supremes. Only some fed statute. Change the statute and let the Court shrink from attrition.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused as to why anyone thinks this would playing out any differently if the President was any other race.
ReplyDeleteCircle K are you calling me a loser? Can you read? Here is the the pertinent section of article II
ReplyDeleteHe shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments
Seems to me the words "he shall appoint" are clearly in the text. It also seems to me that the senate is given the job of advice and consent, so now we are down to the question of if the senate says "we will never give anyone this president nominates the possibility of advice and consent" is the senate acting in an unconstitutional manner.
The senate doesn't have to consent, but it appears they have to consider before declining to consent. Of course none of this would be bothering you or the Senate in the least if President McCain was in his last year.
I didn't vote for McCain and I like to be consistent. Have you checked out Obama, Schumer, Biden etc., all singing a different tune when the shoe was on the order foot?
ReplyDeleteThe language is clear and unambiguous.
ReplyDeleteNow the remaining issue is whose ox is being gored. Can the moral majority object to a guy who got a 97-0 vote for D.C. Appellate bench two years ago? Anyone think that Bert Jordan is a liberal?
C'mon, man!!
By being on the other foot, I assume you mean that Obama, Biden, Schumer, et al, blocked appointments. Voting against an appointment is fulfilling your constitutional duties as a Senator. Not doing anything, is not fulfilling your Constitutional duties. But why should we be surprised? All the Republicans in the Senate have learned in the past 2 years to do is act like the House of Representatives, which has done NOTHING for the past 6 years. And when I say nothing, I mean nothing but pass over 50 bills trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, knowing they can not override the President's veto.
ReplyDeleteSo 4:10, who has to be the troll who calls himself Circle K, explain again to me how doing nothing is doing something.
2:13, is that the best your got? You have to be the biggest moron on the planet.
ReplyDeleteHow's this, Rump? It's making the Internet rounds today:
"Action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is far to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me...we will be in deep trouble as an Institution." -- Joe Biden, 1992
Circle K
Dear R.,
ReplyDeleteThank you!
All the best.
RGK
Circle K, no its not the best I've got. You are clearly not intelligent enough to be worthy of the best I've got.
ReplyDelete12:41 that's hilarious. You're either 12 or 80.
ReplyDelete