Читать книгу How To Fix America - BSL JD Dickens - Страница 7

Chapter Three: Expressions of the Term Limit

During the last half of the twentieth century, and primarily as are result of President Roosevelt's death in office, the use of term limits was exercised by the congress over the executive branch of government. This came about due to the exchange of power to the Vice-President who was Truman, who found himself in a cloud of responsibility from which issues such as use of the atomic bomb had been withheld from Truman. Thus for whatever reason, our Congress sensed a need to limit the term of the Office of the Presidency. Now that to me is an odd attempt to solve a problem, that was not at all related to the problem of not allowing the office of the vice-president to work closer with the president, especially on issues of great importance, like the use of atomic weapons. It was as if the Congress was attempting to regulate death, as if no president should ever die in office. Humans pass away all the time and never on any particular schedule, regardless of their power or stature in life. The important thing is to ensure the “need to know” is always expressed to all persons working within the chain of any command.

Therefore, I see no reason to limit the term of office for the presidency. Perhaps constitutional law should be revised to enforce the positions of power that the tax payers are paying for be required to treat the various offices in line of events of deceased leaders to be required to keep those in successive order informed with regard to various issues under consideration and function of the various offices of government.

As for term limits for the Senate or the House of Representations, again I see no reason for term limits to those posts. Though this is often a cry from the public, seemingly a limit of other states’ Legislators to be limited in the duration of their office does not in a real sense, would one way or another really change the representation that the public wishes to gain. For this reason, one of the main motivations among conservatives of other states was the hope for, in example, the eventual removal of say a liberal senator or congressman from another state. True that a liberal senator or congressman of another state does not represent the best interests of conservatives in another state. However, our current Constitution was not designed to gain universal representation for either liberal, conservatives, moderates, or radicals for that matter. In all likelihood, a state that tends to vote to a greater extent for a liberal agenda is more than likely going to continue to vote for a liberal candidate even if term limits were implemented. Therefore, in conclusion our Constitution already affords term limits for every Senator and House Representative and this is afforded each and every election day. Elections are term limits, and if the voters feel they are or are not represented then they will eventually respond with their votes, or maybe not - none the less that is their freedom, their prerogative.

Overhaul of the Judicial Branch in Term Limits and Selection Process

So where would our freedoms and representation be better served by implementing term limits. It is my point of view that the Judicial Branch of government, the Supreme Court does in fact need a term limit. Not as a means to sanction activism on the bench, for all judges are only as human as the rest of us. Judges are going to always judge with elements of personal preference. Therefore liberal or conservative judges are going to weigh the merits of each case they are presented and end up judging to any stretch of their own preference as much as is possible. Within the confines of how far they can bend without unleashing a public uproar and outrage that can not be controlled is well bounded by the patriotic paralyses of the public. For example, removing prayer from schools had little or no consequence other than petty complaints, but never generated an outraged public. To the cause of religious fervor, curiously wise people are left to wonder, what would turn the public against such judicial maneuvers. Perhaps a public trapped within a cage of patriotism are fed on and swallow the most reckless meals of contract violations. With that said, I do not think that the public is better served or represented by these judges of the Supreme Court when their court opinions are handed down, and because of their lifetime appointments thus strike into the soul of human conditions for as much as a whole generation. Much of the time these court decisions stick long past the lives of those impacted most by such rule of law. While the founding fathers may have had their reasons for life appointments of Supreme Court Justices, these reasons no longer serve the better good of the common wealth, nor the representative interests of the governed public. Plus, it is clear as to how narrow and limited our judicial representation is, as it offers no room to expand the public’s functional representation.

Therefore, I would suggest that the Supreme Court Justices be limited to a twelve-year term. This would insure the judicial system a greater curve of ideas, experiences, and legal thoughts to be capitalized upon from this most valuable human resource. For now our nation is limited in and held from one of our greater human resources exercised in legal experiences, legal talents, and legal skills. A twelve-year term limit would allow for court discussions to be revisited, reexamined, and perhaps reactivated, especially where the represented public produced enough reach to gain the court’s attention for greater representation.

Not only limited to a twelve year term, but the judicial selection process is also very narrow, and does less to gain public representation of the judicial side of government. Yet, these twelve justices can and do have a greater impact upon the public than often seen from any other branch of government. Currently, only the president can nominate his selection of Supreme Court Justices, then the nominations are handed over to the Congress to plow through the nominees’ backgrounds and judicial practices that all too often become nothing but political grandstanding, hearings that last for months, and a catch-all points of view in nagging review of such activism is or should not be allowed in a free society. Then it seems to me that we are not the free society that we should be if a person’s position in life is gauged by their active nature to hold preferences to their own personal agenda. As long as that agenda is within the confines of obeying the laws of the land. Certainly, anyone should be allowed to hold his or her point of view, their own activism for or against any law on the books. Our constitution does not require only conservative thinking nor does it require or limit the nation to liberal thinking. We are free to slant either way, or hold to the middle road of ideas. Whatever a judge’s opinion with regard to any specific law, his or her activism should not in any way circumvent the law. The law should first be changed through the established order of represented functions. Then the individual can exercise his or her activism within the law.

Consider also, that there is a need for minimum qualifications for any judicial seat. Some established rule of trial experience to be no less than certain hours of logged court room activities and to follow strict rules of moral conduct in their personal and professional lives should be required.

Therefore, I hold that a selection process for Supreme Courts Justices be shared by the whole body of the represented public as a means to expand the public’s representation as well as increase the total function of the system of checks and balances. Hence there are twelve members of the Supreme Court, then let there be four bodies within that setting made up of three justices per each of four bodies of the Supreme Court. I will suggest the names of these four judicial bodies as, the Executive Body, the Elder Body, the State Body, and finally the Republic Body, To follow I will explain the process and procedures of selection of each Judicial Body:

The Executive Body

This body of justices called the Executive Body and will be composed of three justices and one among this group shall be the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will be selected by the Office of the President and will require Senate approval by any level of majority - selected only from any one of the three Justices from the Executive Body of Judges. These three justices will be nominated by the President, just as is the option under which we presently operate. This Executive Body of Justices will be confirmed by the Senate only, with any majority vote from the Senate. The Executive Body of Justices once confirmed shall have the same oversight of Federal Jurisdiction as they currently hold, and for the checks and balances shall have jurisdictional oversight of the Senate. Therefore, any improprieties with regard to the conduct of the Senate or the individual Senators can be brought to prosecution under regulations of law and the Executive Body of Justices to hear these cases, as well as other public cases brought to the Supreme Court just as is the current function of the court.

Furthermore, a twelve-year term limit for these justices does not mean that these individuals have to step down. Rather, renomination would be allowed, as long as at least two other nominations are made available for consideration by the Senate at the end of any twelve year term.

The Elder Body

The Elder Body of Justices shall again hold three seats of justices, and must hold a duration of court experience to a determined length of service greater than is required by any other Body within the four-body system of justices, hence the name given to this Body, the Elder Body. This Elder Body of Justices will be nominated by the Senate (rather than the President), and confirmed by the House of Representatives and in less than two-thirds majority, must be signed off by the President, or the President can exercise veto power over any nomination with less than two-thirds majority. Holding the same judicial practice as the current courts, this Elder Body of Justices shall have oversight of the conduct of the House of Representatives, and can maintain checks and balances for prosecution under any breach of law conducted by the House of Representatives or individual congressional representatives. Again, the justices can be renominated at the end of their twelve-year term along with two additional alternatives for the House of Representatives to consider.

The State Body

The State Body of Justices shall also hold three seats on the Supreme Court’s Judicial bench. The State Body of Justices are nominated by the House of Representatives (rather than the Office of the President), and confirmed by the Senate. Again if less than two-thirds majority vote in the Senate is reached, the nominations then proceed to the President for final approval or power to veto, If there is a veto, the process shall start anew. If the two-thirds majority is reached then the nominations are assigned in confirmation to the Supreme Court. As with the Elder Body of Justices the State Body of Justices can again be renominated at the end of their twelve-year term along with two additional alternatives for the Senate to consider for confirmation.

The Republic Body

The Republic Body of Justices shall also hold three seats on the Supreme Courts Judicial bench as well. The Republic Body of Justices shall be elected by the public in the same national election cycle as the President. They campaign on the established minimums of qualifications and are required to render evidence to the public that their court room log of experience and judicial actions taken within that trial experience. Before qualifying for the election ballot, these judicial candidates will be required to pass the same level of security clearance as is established for the highest level security clearance required of the highest levels of the military.

The Republic Body of Justices term of office is also limited to twelve years. The Republic Body members can run for re-election as many times as the public will vote for them, thus they are not required to step down after twelve years. They are simply required to post themselves once again on the ballot for the public to extend their court representation for the people. Along with their duties to the Supreme Court, these justices will have oversight of the Executive Branch of Government, thus prosecution rights over the President, his cabinet and staff. This responsibility is the reason that they shall pass the security clearance requirement of the military. Another reason for this is to limit the use of Executive Privilege only to executive actions, less any military functions of the executive office. The Republic Body of Justices having been sworn into office, can through prosecution be allowed to develop a “need to know,” thus having access to state and military secrets for the purpose of finding and relief of necessity of executive privilege. This is not to be used as a means to halt executive privilege but rather to investigate the claim for necessity of executive privilege. The Joint Chiefs of Staff can brief the Justices on which state or military secrets can or can not be shared to prevent public jeopardy within a Congressional Court of Impeachment. As is the current procedure, the House and Senate can exercise the actions of impeachment. However the Republic Body of Justices can prosecute and deliver evidence to the Congress for any impeachment proceedings. These justices can conduct the court proceedings of the impeachment process, but they do not have a vote in the impeachment itself. They would be acting as a continual special investigative committee, grand jury, and branch of prosecution. This does not intend to stop the House or the Senate from producing their own committees and special prosecutions. The state of business as usual continues to function. This is an additional realm of checks and balances with a direct line of access from the high court.

The Republic Body can issue sentencing to the impeached on the recommendations of the House and Senate as well for these justices to take into consideration, however sentences from the Republic Body is left to their final determination.