In May of 2016, President Barak Obama nominated Judge Merrick
Garland to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Since that time, the Senate has refused to vote on or to
hold hearings on Judge Garland’s nomination.
There
have been claims:
“The
President should be able to name anyone that he wants to the court.”
“Congress
has failed to act and thereby lost any say in the matter.”
“Congress
is not fulfilling their Constitutional duties.”
The
Appointment Clause of the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) states
that the
president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court."
In reference to the President, the US Constitution,
Article II, Section 1, states that before he enter on the execution of his
office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:
"I
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of
President of the United States, and will
to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States."
The
Senators take an oath as follows:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take
this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which
I am about to enter: So help me God”.
If the President is going to live up to the preserve, protect, and defend part of the
oath, then he/she is obligated to
name judges that are strict constitutionalists and not those that view the
Constitution as a living document that the courts can change at will.
None of Obama’s three nominees met this requirement. Congress, knowing that Obama would never
nominate a pro-constitution judge did, as a practical matter, approve the first
two nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The Senate understood that the appointment of Judge
Garland would have begun the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution and held out
hope (a very slim hope at the time) that Mrs. Clinton would not become the
President and finish the destruction of the constitutional United States!
Is the opinion of this writer that the Senate, by not
acting on Garland’s nomination, fulfilled their constitutional duties thereby
saving the United Sates as we know it!
Comments
are invited!
Send
feedback to: WatchDog
3 comments:
I AGREE 100%!
If the Progressives had maintained control, we would have been referring to each other as comrade. They have already greatly restricted free speech and freedom of religion thereby undermining the 1st Amendment. And they all but destroyed the 10th Amendment.
I pray that the new administration will do all it can to reverse this damage and restore the Constitution!
The recent court ruling of the POTUS’ authority to block foreign entry for security reasons confirms the argument.
Far too many Federal Judges are making political rather than law based decisions.
Judge Garland is said to be a well qualified nominee for the Supreme Court.
However, a close look at his record indicates that he is a strong opponent of both the 2nd Amendment and Sates Rights.
Post a Comment