Does an appointee to the federal court system have to be a lawyer? No! Has there ever been an instance where an appointee to the federal court system has not been a lawyer? Yes! I bring this up because of a letter to the editor in the Peoria Journal Star this morning. The letter writer laments that Harriet Miers is not qualified for her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court because she has never been a judge.
So what? Being a judge does not automatically qualify one to be a member of the Supreme Court. All one has to do is look at the present members of the Supreme Court to realize that having been a judge at a lower level does not mean one will be a Constitutional Justice at the Supreme Court. We have Justices who continually violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. We have Justices who use international law or the law of other nations to reach decisions instead of using the United States Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.
What are the Constitutional qualifications for a member of the federal court system? The U.S. Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to be 25 years of age, be a U.S. citizen for 7 years, and live in the state where they were elected. (While in college I had a disagree with one of my political science professors because he said members of the House of Representatives had to live in the district where they were elected. Not true. The Constitution says nothing about districts. In fact, the first elections did not have districts--Representatives were elected state wide. [Do you remember Chris?]) Members of the Senate have to be 30 years old, be a U.S. citizen for 9 years, and live in the state they were elected from. (Of course, originally, Senators were appointed to the Senate by state legislatures.) The President has to be a natural born citizen (Why Arnold can never be President.), 35 years of age, and have lived in the United States 14 years before his election to the Presidency. What are the Constitutional qualifications for a member of the federal court system? None!
Why would the writers of the Constitution not give any qualifications for members of the federal court system? I don't know. I do know this; they were smart enough not to require them to be lawyers! Perhaps they wanted members of the court to first and foremost uphold the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Duh!
I am presently reading Zell Miller's A deficit of Decency. I certainly don't agree with everything he writes. However, he has an excellent chapter in relation to the Senate (He was a Senator.) and the courts entitled "Elected to Serve, not Swerve." On pages 122-123, he quotes Thomas Sowell from his book The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press, 2002). I liked what it said so I will quote it here (I did not research it to see if it was accurate.) "After having lunch one day with Judge Learned Hand, (That is his correct name; I remember the name from school.) (Justice Oliver Wendell) Holmes entered his carriage to be driven away. As he left, Judge Hand's parting salute was: 'Do justice sir, do justice.' Holmes ordered the carriage stopped. 'That is not my job,' Holmes replied to Judge Hand. 'It is my job to apply the law.' Elsewhere Holmes wrote that his primary responsibility as a judge was 'to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.'" To which I reply: Amen!
So what? Being a judge does not automatically qualify one to be a member of the Supreme Court. All one has to do is look at the present members of the Supreme Court to realize that having been a judge at a lower level does not mean one will be a Constitutional Justice at the Supreme Court. We have Justices who continually violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. We have Justices who use international law or the law of other nations to reach decisions instead of using the United States Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.
What are the Constitutional qualifications for a member of the federal court system? The U.S. Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to be 25 years of age, be a U.S. citizen for 7 years, and live in the state where they were elected. (While in college I had a disagree with one of my political science professors because he said members of the House of Representatives had to live in the district where they were elected. Not true. The Constitution says nothing about districts. In fact, the first elections did not have districts--Representatives were elected state wide. [Do you remember Chris?]) Members of the Senate have to be 30 years old, be a U.S. citizen for 9 years, and live in the state they were elected from. (Of course, originally, Senators were appointed to the Senate by state legislatures.) The President has to be a natural born citizen (Why Arnold can never be President.), 35 years of age, and have lived in the United States 14 years before his election to the Presidency. What are the Constitutional qualifications for a member of the federal court system? None!
Why would the writers of the Constitution not give any qualifications for members of the federal court system? I don't know. I do know this; they were smart enough not to require them to be lawyers! Perhaps they wanted members of the court to first and foremost uphold the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Duh!
I am presently reading Zell Miller's A deficit of Decency. I certainly don't agree with everything he writes. However, he has an excellent chapter in relation to the Senate (He was a Senator.) and the courts entitled "Elected to Serve, not Swerve." On pages 122-123, he quotes Thomas Sowell from his book The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press, 2002). I liked what it said so I will quote it here (I did not research it to see if it was accurate.) "After having lunch one day with Judge Learned Hand, (That is his correct name; I remember the name from school.) (Justice Oliver Wendell) Holmes entered his carriage to be driven away. As he left, Judge Hand's parting salute was: 'Do justice sir, do justice.' Holmes ordered the carriage stopped. 'That is not my job,' Holmes replied to Judge Hand. 'It is my job to apply the law.' Elsewhere Holmes wrote that his primary responsibility as a judge was 'to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.'" To which I reply: Amen!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 12:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home