Supreme Court Nomination Hearings

Today March 20, 2017 begins the governmental process of hearings designed to learn more about nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.  An important position, which keeps the checks and balances needed to maintain our country’s democracy.  While this blogpost today is in no way an in depth evaluation of any one issue it is meant as only  a very small informative blog post.  The reason I found its’ value was the reported facts that Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote during his time in University for the Federalists Papers and based his writings then and in the future on his belief in our Constitution and the values it stands for.  In my mind particularly is a ponderous set of thoughts about the security of our Nation in today’s world.  So I felt compelled to reprint the following facts in an attempt to enlighten my mind on the deeper thoughts that the current nominee might base his considerations in cases that may come before him, if he is to be the new Justice of the United States. It is my sole opinion that the reprint below lends some insight into the powers bestowed on our representatives in government including the President.  I am interested in learning if my initial impression of Judge Gorsuch will remain intact after his testimony to the Senate.  When I read some of his decisions and look thoroughly at his face my first reaction is that of a kind man with deep family values.  He appears to enjoy nature and has a good understanding of the world as well as his own country.  His studies in law seem to have struck him at his core and helped him pursue his calling.  I believe the background of his formative family life most likely left him to seek out truth and justice in all areas of life.  Without further ado and so that I stop myself from getting ahead of myself, below is the reprint. 

And that is The Way I See It her in Brooklyn

K

In the beginning, there was not much controversy over the power between the Senate and President in treaty making, but there were many differences within the senate because of different political views.There were multiple arguments submitted to the Senate between 1789 and 1815 and there were no rejections.[5] Over time, the checks and balances between the president and senate has affected the country’s ability to successfully make treaties in the best interest of the country. Getting ⅔ of the Senate’s approval became a hard process and it seemed more effective for the Presidents to make executive agreements. The president can act alone and make an executive agreement in relation to foreign policy without the approval of congress. Overtime there is a significant an increase in executive agreements and a decrease in treaty making. 1937 was the last year that there were more treaties made than executive agreements.[6] Between 1789 and 1839, the US State Department reported 60 treaties and 27 executive agreements, but by the 20th century, presidents including McKinley, Taft, and Theodore Roosevelt began using more executive agreements on important foreign situations.[7] Between the Presidencies of Roosevelt(1901-1909) and Bush(2001-2005) the use of executive agreements significantly increased indicating that Presidents would rather avoid political differences with the Senate and make foreign Policy decisions without discussing a possible treaty with the Senate. 1/3 of the treaties that were discussed during the presidencies of Roosevelt and Bush were in the Senate’s power.[7] During President Obama’s first 3 years of office, he used many more executive agreements than treaties. In order to avoid controversy due to politics, President Obama made many executive decisions including, “the use of American military power and solutions to global problems, including nuclear proliferation, a global financial crisis, and climate change”.[6]

References Edit

^ Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay. “The Federalist Papers Essay 64 Summary and Analysis.” GradeSaver. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 October 2016.

^ Thirty-five, By Excluding Men under. “The Federalist #64.” The Federalist #64. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 October 2016. <http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa64.htm&gt;.

^ How Did John Jay Interpret the Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym.” How Did John Jay Interpret the Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 October 2016.

^ a b c “ThisNation.com–The Antifederalist Papers No. 64.” ThisNation.com–The Antifederalist Papers No. 64. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

^ Holt, Stull (2000). Treaties defeated by the Senate: a study of the struggle between President and Senate over the conduct of foreign relations. pp. 1–205.

^ a b Peake, Jeffery; Krutz, Glen; Hughes, Tyler (2012). “President Obama, The Senate, And The Polarized Politics Of Treaty Making”. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell). 93 (5): 1295–1325.

^ a b Prins, Brandon; Bryan, Marshall (2009). “Senate Influence or Presidential Unilateralism? An Examination of Treaties and Executive Agreements from Theodore Roosevelt and George W. Bush.”. Conflict Management and Peace Science. 26 (2): 191–208.

^ “John Jay and the Constitution”. Columbia Digital Libraries.

One thought on “Supreme Court Nomination Hearings

  1. Pattie

    Now today the dems will skewer him in front of his wife. This lovely man will take it because this is a dream come true for him or any lawyer. The dems will say & do anything to shake him to his core & I probably won’t watch because the last time I did it upset me so much it took weeks to get over.

    Like

Won't you tell me what you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s