Two weeks ago Sunday, the Peoria Journal Star printed an op/ed article written by a law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder. In the article he argues that Supreme Court Justices should be appointed for eighteen year terms with one new justice appointed every two years. A quote from the article includes, "Combine these two factors and our present system of life tenure for federal judges in general, and Supreme Court justices in particular, makes no sense."
I taught American government for a couple of years and have a master's degree in political science. The Constitution does not provide for "life tenure" for members of the federal court system. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states the following in relation to the term of office for all judges in the federal court system; (they) "shall hold their office during good behavior." Note the term is "during good behavior;" it says nothing about life tenure. (I don't know what is being taught in schools today but I specifically emphasized that there is no guaranteed life tenure.)
Furthermore, the Constitution does not define what good behavior is. Who then determines good behavior? Congress does because they have the authority to impeach and convict(remove from office) any member of the federal judiciary. In fact, Congress in the past through the impeachment process has impeached and convicted members of the federal court system.
To change the Constitution (other than by judicial fiat) to provide for a set term of office for court members, it takes a 2/3rds vote of members voting in each House. It then must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states usually by the General Assembly of each state. To impeach, it takes a majority vote in the House of Representatives of those voting and a 2/3rds vote in the Senate of those voting.
The point is that it would be easier to remove a judge by impeachment and conviction that it would be to amend the Constitution. The problem is in recent years the Congress has not availed itself of this method to remove judges who violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The result is that judges reach decisions based upon their own opinions rather than the clear provisions of the Constitution. The process is in place to remove senile judges and to remove judges who violate their oath of office. It needs to be used!
I would suggest one of the first justices who should be impeached is the justice (he will remain nameless) who believes that international law is the same as Constitutional law. It is not! I actually don't think a large number of impeachments would be necessary. Once judges realized Congress intends to follow its constitutionally given authority to impeach and convict judges who are not acting under the "good behavior" provisions, they will quickly begin to follow the Constitution as their guide in reaching decisions rather than their own personal opinions. Wouldn't that be different?
It certainly can't hurt to actually follow the document that we consider to be the supreme law of the land!
I taught American government for a couple of years and have a master's degree in political science. The Constitution does not provide for "life tenure" for members of the federal court system. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states the following in relation to the term of office for all judges in the federal court system; (they) "shall hold their office during good behavior." Note the term is "during good behavior;" it says nothing about life tenure. (I don't know what is being taught in schools today but I specifically emphasized that there is no guaranteed life tenure.)
Furthermore, the Constitution does not define what good behavior is. Who then determines good behavior? Congress does because they have the authority to impeach and convict(remove from office) any member of the federal judiciary. In fact, Congress in the past through the impeachment process has impeached and convicted members of the federal court system.
To change the Constitution (other than by judicial fiat) to provide for a set term of office for court members, it takes a 2/3rds vote of members voting in each House. It then must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states usually by the General Assembly of each state. To impeach, it takes a majority vote in the House of Representatives of those voting and a 2/3rds vote in the Senate of those voting.
The point is that it would be easier to remove a judge by impeachment and conviction that it would be to amend the Constitution. The problem is in recent years the Congress has not availed itself of this method to remove judges who violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The result is that judges reach decisions based upon their own opinions rather than the clear provisions of the Constitution. The process is in place to remove senile judges and to remove judges who violate their oath of office. It needs to be used!
I would suggest one of the first justices who should be impeached is the justice (he will remain nameless) who believes that international law is the same as Constitutional law. It is not! I actually don't think a large number of impeachments would be necessary. Once judges realized Congress intends to follow its constitutionally given authority to impeach and convict judges who are not acting under the "good behavior" provisions, they will quickly begin to follow the Constitution as their guide in reaching decisions rather than their own personal opinions. Wouldn't that be different?
It certainly can't hurt to actually follow the document that we consider to be the supreme law of the land!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 11:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home