Dr. Larry P. Arnn, President of Hillsdale College

Hillsdale College Online Town Hall
"Our Choice Today:
Bureaucratic Despotism or the Constitution"
Saturday, January 28, 2012
11 a.m. -- 3:15 p.m. EST
Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for
Constitutional Studies and Citizenship
227 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002

[@griswoldjf]

Dr Larry Arnn, I recognized the painting on the wall too when the two P's were speaking and the camera shot that direction. I love that painting! An awesome time of our Patriotic History.

[@JohnSmith-uq2ok]

hey farva! what's that biook called by solzenizen?

[@dangerousrightwing]

The volume is too low on this recording. No amount of blasting my speakers makes it listenable.

[@mindsaglowin]

Regarding the need for simplicity in government, how is that ever possible when we have a constitutionally mandated law factory, the Congress? It's very purpose is to make law. And the longer we exist, the longer the laws.

[@ResearchBuddy]

The U.S. has never had truly monolithic political parties, and most politicians would not rate 100% on one side or the other. MANY factors go into how votes on different issues come out, and why they happen at a particular time in history. What should be at issue is recognizing what core factors have made this country, through many different eras and political climates, historically on the whole the most respected, wealthiest, most accommodating, most welcoming country on this planet, and the most sought after destination by the poor, the refugee, the harassed, the persecuted. Our core values, based on the Constitution and the underlying Declaration of Independence, have made this so. Why would we want to change this and become more like what so many others would rather flee from? That said, we must recognize that some things were not anticipated by our Founding Fathers, and so the Constitution needs to be tweaked (not destroyed) to restore in practice what they believed the original structure was capable of accomplishing, and has until recently. The states have lost too much of their Constitutional powers to the federal government. In large part the instrument of this transfer of power has been the Supreme Court. There needs to be a better way to ensure that Constitutional checks-and-balances actually works. Some suggest term limits for the Court but that is only a partial solution since it can’t prevent the de facto collusion of a like-minded President, Senate, and appointees to the Supreme Court whose effects can still wreak havoc under a term limits scheme. Allowing Congress or even State petitions to over-rule the Court at some level is right thinking but these violate the Framers’ philosophy. Therefore, I propose the following: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES PERTAINING TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PREAMBLE Whereas: 1. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America to prevent arbitrary rule by the head of government, or collusion between parts of the federal government which would have the similar effect of arbitrary rule; 2. The members of the United States Supreme Court are human, collectively with all the faults and prejudices and partisanship that humans are prone to; 3. The current system for selecting and ratifying an appointment to the United States Supreme Court is deficient insofar as it permits partisan collusion between the President of the United States and the United States Senate to fill all vacancies in the Court with like-minded appointees during the term(s) of office of the President of the United States; 4. Under the current system any collection of such partisan appointments can become the majority and remain on the Court for several decades, spanning many administrations and Congressional sessions, with the potential of ruling in a partisan manner which may be at odds with the will of the national consensus as expressed over these decades; 5. The current system has no method of influencing or changing the makeup of the Court in any reasonable time frame should such aforementioned collusion have occurred, and Whereas: 1. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America that members of the Supreme Court not be chosen by election and therefore would not be prone to the influences made necessary in the modern process of campaigning for election; 2. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America to reduce the likelihood of Court rulings being influenced by politics, by public capriciousness and clamor, and by social influences, that they established no limits on the term of service of a Justice of the Supreme Court; 3. The framers of the Constitution of the United States of America intended that federal powers be limited and that the vast majority of legislative powers be vested in the people through their state governments, Therefore, the following Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is proposed: Section 1. Members of the United States Supreme Court Article 1. The Supreme Court of the United States of America shall consist of one member from each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the collective United States dependencies of Guam, American Samoa, American Virgin Islands and other such territories as the United States may presently have or acquire in the future. As of the date of this document these total 53. Article 2. Each of the authorities addressed in Section 1, Article 1 shall select their candidate for the Supreme Court by a method of their own choosing. Subsection 1. Should no selection be made within 6 months of a vacancy caused by the death, resignation, incapacity, completion of term of service, or impeachment and removal from office, the Governor or other legally constituted head of government of that authority shall appoint the candidate. Subsection 2. The collective dependencies addressed in Article 1 shall, upon adoption of this Amendment, establish from among their constituent territorial government heads a titular head for purposes of this Section. Section 2. Terms of Service of Members of the United States Supreme Court Article 1. A Justice of the Supreme Court shall serve for a single term of eight (8) years. Article 2. The term of office of a Supreme Court Justice begins on the day of appointment and is not fixed by the calendar or any other cycle. Section 3. Selection of the Chief Justice of the United States Article 1. The Chief Justice of the United States shall be selected by the President of the United States from among the active Justices and immediately shall begin to serve in that office. Section 4. Compensation of Members of the United States Supreme Court Article 1. Compensation of Members of the United States Supreme Court shall be proposed by the United States House of Representatives and Ratified by the United States Senate. Article 2. Compensation of Justices of the United States Supreme Court may not be considered any sooner than three (3) years after the previous ratification. Article 3. Compensation of all Justices of the United States Supreme Court shall be equal with the exception of the Chief Justice, who shall receive fifty (50) percent additional in base compensation, exclusive of benefits. Section 5. Acceptance of Cases Article 1. The Chief Justice of the United States shall be the sole arbiter as to which cases involving a Constitutional issue may be argued before the Supreme Court. Section 6. Apportionment of Cases Article 1. All cases involving a Constitutional issue shall be argued before a panel of nine (9) Justices. Subsection 1. Nine (9) Justices shall be chosen by lot from among all active Justices. Subsection 2. The Chief Justice may declare his/her intention to hear a given case prior to the start of the lottery, thereby requiring only eight (8) additional Justices for that case. Subsection 3. If the Chief Justice does not declare for a particular case, then he/she enters the lottery equally with all other Justices. Article 2. No Justice may hear more than three cases at the same time. Article 3. After a panel has been selected, should a Justice be unable to hear and deliberate upon a case, the case can continue forward as long as there remain at least seven (7) Justices on the panel. Subsection 1. Should there be less than seven (7) Justices remaining on the panel and there is no unanimous agreement of the panel to temporarily suspend a hearing or deliberations, the case shall be returned for resubmission to the lottery. Section 7. Implementing this Constitutional Amendment Article 1. This Constitutional Amendment shall take effect one year from the time of Ratification. Article 2. Sitting Justices at the time of Ratification of this Amendment shall deliberate among themselves and individually declare which State or Territory they shall choose to represent. All other Justices shall be chosen per Section 1. Article 3. By lottery, the first generation of Justices shall be divided into three (3) groups as equally as possible. Members of each group shall serve for six (6), eight (8) and ten (10) years respectively, after which the conditions of Section 2 shall prevail. Article 4. The sitting Chief Justice at the time of Ratification of this amendment shall assume the same role, after which the conditions of Section 2 and Section 3 shall prevail.

[@JohnSmith-uq2ok]

suddenly every lecturer synomously found solzenishen at the exact same time.. Will Jordan ever say that there's a god? Watch him dance.

[@JohnSmith-uq2ok]

the next person to say solchenzin or gulag archipalego is going to get pistol whipped