Manchin & Welch Propose Amendment To Limit Terms Of Supreme Court Justices

Article posted with permission from the author, Suzanne Hamner

Does the united States really need term limits for members of the Supreme Court? Before answering that question, please read the Constitution for the united States of America in its entirety, paying close attention to Article I and Article III.

The Epoch Times reported that Sens. Peter Welch (D-VT) and Joe Manchin (I-W.VA) introduced a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution to limit newly appointed Supreme Court justices to 18 years on the bench and “lead to an opening roughly every two years”. Remember, Constitutional amendments are required to be passed by a two-thirds majority of both chambers of Congress (House and Senate) and ratified by three-quarters of the States, which would be 38 States.

The Epoch Times reported:

• Buy All-American!
• Bring health and vitality back to your body with these non-transdermal patches
• Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
• How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation – Use promo code TIM to save $$$
• The Very Best All-American Made Supplements On The Maret
• Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Save with Promo Code TIM
• Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
• Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
• Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify
• The Very Best Chlorine Dioxide
• All-American, US Prime, High Choice Grass-Fed Beef with NO mRNA, hormones or antibiotics… ever!

According to a summary provided by Welch, the amendment would not change the number of sitting justices, currently set at nine by law, and would establish a transition period to ensure vacancies occur at regular intervals.

“Taking action to restore public trust in our nation’s most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary. Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is a commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans,” Welch said in a joint statement issued with Manchin on Dec. 7. “I’m proud to lead this effort with Senator Manchin, which will restore Americans’ faith in our judicial system.”

During the transition period, 18-year terms will start every two years, without regard to when a sitting justice steps down. When a sitting justice retires, the incoming justice will complete what remains of the next upcoming 18-year term.

Manchin claims the current “lifetime appointment structure is broken” and “fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land.”

“Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the court, allowing the president to appoint a new justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate,” he said.

Other measures are pending in Congress that would limit the tenure of Supreme Court justices.

So, how would the Senate confirmation of Supreme Court justices every two years stop “polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing”? It won’t. It will make those more frequent.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who chairs a Senate subcommittee overseeing federal courts, introduced a bill that would limit justices’ tenure to 18 years. Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) filed a similar bill in the House.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) introduced legislation that would force out justices after 18 years of regular active service, at which point they would assume senior status, a kind of semi-retirement for federal judges, and continue to draw a federal paycheck for life. Superannuated justices are already allowed to serve on lower courts by a 1937 law that allows justices to sit “by designation” on those courts.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) took the opportunity during the summer to grandstand in opposition to “Supreme Court reform” proposals, which included term limits.

“They want to pack the court. They want … to undercut the conservative court,” Graham said during a July 28 interview on CBS’s “Face The Nation.”

“They have no desire to make the court better. They’re just trying to make it more liberal.”

If a majority of Americans support this supposed “common sense reform”, the majority of Americans are ignorant of the Constitution for the united States of America.

In Article III, Section 1, the Constitution for the united States of America states, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” This means judges, Supreme Court and inferior courts, only hold their office during good behavior. They do not hold their positions for a lifetime. Good behavior means following the Constitution in its original intent as indicated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 81.

Let us review Art. III, §2:

Clause 1 lists the categories of cases federal judges are permitted to hear.

Now look at clause 2:  The FIRST SENTENCE lists two of the categories set forth in clause 1 (cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” & “those in which a State shall be Party”) and says that in ALL such cases, the supreme Court SHALL have original [trial] jurisdiction.

The SECOND SENTENCE says that in all the other cases set forth in clause 1, “the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

The Constitution is clear!  So is The Federalist.  In No. 81, Hamilton sums it up:

We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, “with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.” (15th para) [emphasis  in original]

See also, as to the supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, No. 81 (13th para).

As to the “exceptions & regulations” respecting the supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, see No. 81 (last 6 paras):  the exceptions & regulations merely address the mode of doing appeals.

When Supreme Court judges/justices operate outside of the authority of Article II of the Constitution for the united States of America, these judges are not engaging in “good behavior”.

Article I, Section 2, last paragraph states, “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I, Section 3, paragraph six states, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

Article II, Section 4 states, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Since Supreme Court judges/justices and judges of all inferior courts are “civil officers of the united States”, these individuals may be removed from office by impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Surely, violations of the Constitution would be considered a “high crime”. Federalist Paper no. 81 indicates federal judges may be impeached and removed for usurpation of power.

Throughout The Federalist Papers, it is stated that impeachment is for “political offenses”.

2. The House has the SOLE power of impeachment (Art. I, Sec. 2, last clause).  The Senate has the SOLE power to try all impeachments (Art. I, Sec. 3, next to last clause).  The decision to convict is not reviewable by any other body – and common sense tells us what that means!  The House may impeach, and the Senate may convict, for any reason whatsoever; and their decision cannot be overturned.

3. The meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” at Art. II, Sec. 4, is far broader than one might at first glance think.  Somewhere I saw a scholarly paper showing that the “high” refers to the status of the official – it does not refer to the severity of the offense.

Now, note well!  “Misdemeanor” has a broader meaning than “a lesser category of criminal offense”.  Webster’s 1828 Dictionary shows the primary meaning is:  “Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.”

This shows that a President, Vice-president, and all civil Officers and Judges of the United States may be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office for “mismanagement”.

So, using the Constitution, it has been proven that Supreme Court justices and judges do not have lifetime appointments, but only hold their post during good behavior. And, Congress has the authority to impeach (House function) and try (Senate function) all civil officers including the president and vice-president. Congress has shirked its impeachment duty, using impeachment politically to target opposition, not constitutionally to remove usurpers and those violating the Constitution. Even when impeachment is used constitutionally (only against three presidents), no one has ever been convicted. It was all a dog and pony show to distract the people.

In all honesty, all presidents could have and should have been impeached and convicted for violations against the Constitution, mismanagement, usurpation of power, and evil conduct. In truth, impeachment has been used as a “battering ram” in a political “show” to the American public to convince constituents “they are doing something”, knowing a conviction will not be forthcoming.

This proposal for a Constitutional amendment by Welch and Manchin is a lazy man’s attempt to indicate to the people “they are doing something” about Supreme Court justices that fail to follow the Constitution. In reality, this amendment would allow the placement of justices to the Supreme Court that would be sympathetic to the current administration’s policy, agenda, and cause. It would create more chaos than is already seen in government. It would be Senate confirmation dog and pony show hearings before the “rubber stamp of approval” is issued. It also would serve as an additional distraction for the people so Congress and the administration could hide their continued criminality and corruption.

The solution is not term limits for Supreme Court justices. The solution is holding these justices to their constitutional authority. When the justices stray outside their authority enumerated in Article III, Section 2, the appropriate action is impeachment, not an amendment to limit their terms. With a House of Representatives that operates unconstitutionally in their legislative authority and a Senate operating outside of State oversight, one cannot expect either chamber to hold justices accountable to the Constitution.

The American people are so ignorant of the Constitution and willing to shirk their duty to hold government accountable, they will rally behind this stupidity to be able to then complain more about what is going on instead of doing something about it. Without knowing it, the people already live under a Supreme Court black robe oligarchy directed by agenda, fascism, private wealthy individuals and the justices’ own sense of “constitutionality” – all with the approval of both chambers of Congress. They will continue to do so until they remedy their ignorance through knowledge, then seriously be diligent in holding government at all levels accountable.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media