Representative Kathy Landing’s Post

Supreme Court Justice Term Limits Put term limits on the Supreme Court justices equal to 2 years times the number of justices (currently 9 justices therefore 9*2=18-year term limit) so every two years a justice must be reconfirmed, or replaced by a new candidate. The process occurs starting in February of a non-federal election year and must be voted on by Congress by the end-of-June that year. If the justice is not confirmed, or if a justice leaves the bench before their term ends, their replacement justice’s confirmation becomes the next upcoming reconfirmation, and reconfirmation for all other justices will be extended 2-years. To initiate the process, the first justice to be reconfirmed will be the longest serving justice. The process will occur during the next non-congressional election year and proceeding sequentially for each justice by years served longest to shortest being last to be reconfirmed, then continuing forever. If the number of justices is increased, the new justices will be added into to the reconfirmation process in their order of confirmation.   Purpose above Politics & Power Voters create and pass laws ourselves Democracy is NOT winner take all. We pay taxes -- we deserve a say in how they are spent The Rich are not always right. In a democracy you get what you vote for. Sample initiatives on webapp https://VVA.US With the Voters Voice Amendment (VVA) at VVA.US and PttP.US  we can make these decisions ourselves for OUR future and OUR children’s future.

202405 The Month of MAYbe - Part 1 Maybe, if we just sit back everything will work itself out? Maybe we can kill off the Republican Party and that will fix all the problems? Maybe allowing MAGAs a seat in local government won’t hurt too much? Four months (122 days) from the beginning of 2024, and five months (188 days) until November elections. There is a lull in the determination of those working towards our long-term goal. Our goal has not changed – to protect the democratic process and the United States Constitution. Enough has happened in the last 122 days to elicit a tired response to the next 188 days. But the twice impeached, four-time indicted, soon-to-be convicted former President has no intention of allowing victory. Our resolve must not waiver. Our determination must remain steady. This is a war that must be won. Maybe all the legal battles will get pushed into a future beyond the election? That does not change the reality that our battle is to remove anarchists from the key positions of government—local, state, and national. 2024 is a critical moment in this war, seeing that the orange figurehead of the MAGA mob is seeking to retake the presidency. None of the cases being pushed into the future have a problem if we re-elect Joe Biden and gain control of the Senate and the House. The steady, somewhat tedious arm of the law will accomplish its duty and bring the perpetrators of Jan 6th to justice. Respectfully, William C. Joyce III Former Republican hoping to have a party to come home to. PLEASE SHARE THIS – get the message out… Printable versions of these documents can be found here: https://lnkd.in/gVfnHr5q

Let's dive into some of the issues around Parliament sitting to elect a Speaker and a President on Friday 14 June. The courts have dismissed the MK Party's attempt to interdict the sitting, saying there was no urgency and no demonstration of the harm that would occur to it if the sitting were to go ahead. However, the MK Party has a second argument worth looking at. The Constitution does state under the heading 'Composition and Election', Section 46. (1) (2): "The National Assembly consists of no fewer than 350 and no more than 400 women and men elected as members." With the 58 members of the MK Party absent and not sworn in (and assuming all other members attend), Parliament will consist of 342 or fewer members, below the 350-member threshold. This would then, as MK Party counsel has pointed out, lead to the questioning of the legitimacy of any decision taken by the 'improperly constituted' Parliament, starting with the election of the Speaker and President. However, there is a strong counter-argument along these lines: It could never have been the intention of the writers of the constitution that a minority party - or indeed any party with 51 or more members - should be able to prevent the legal constitution of the national assembly. This would be to hand veto power over the very existence of the national assembly to political parties or groups of MPS wanting to undermine it. Interesting times ...

The Taxpayer Protection Act has been removed from the November 5 ballot. https://lnkd.in/gDeGHZSB 7-0 decision CONCLUSION A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue, directing the Secretary of State to refrain from taking any steps to place Attorney General Initiative No. 21-0042A1, also known as Secretary of State Initiative No. 1935, on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide. In light of the time constraints under which the Secretary of State is required to act, the opinion and judgment shall become final five days after it is filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A); see Isaak v. Superior Court (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 792, 801.) Each party shall bear its own costs. (See Strauss, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 475; Raven, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 356.)

This afternoon, Congress passed a new continuing resolution necessary to fund the government past the upcoming deadlines in the previous continuing resolution. Those deadlines were tomorrow (January 19) and February 2. The deadlines in the new measure are March 1 and March 8. This is the third continuing resolution passed in four months as extremist Republicans have refused to fund the government unless they get a wish list of concessions to their ideology. Today’s vote was no exception. Eighteen Republican senators voted against the measure, while five Republicans did not vote (at least one, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, is ill). All the Democrats voted in favor. The final tally was 77 to 18, with five not voting. In the House the vote was 314 to 108, with 11 not voting. Republicans were evenly split between supporting government funding and voting against it, threatening to shut down the government. They split 107 to 106. All but two Democrats voted in favor of government funding. (In the past, Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts and MIke Quigley of Illinois have voted no on a continuing resolution to fund the government in protest that the measure did not include funding for Ukraine.) -Heather Cox Richardson

Now that it's August and formal sessions are over, take a look at the voting patterns from this session, as well as over the past 5 sessions. It's nothing new that most votes are taken up in July of the last year in a session, but as the data will show, legislators have increasingly pushed votes back further and further to the deadline. https://lnkd.in/e4Bcvfpy #mapoli#massachusetts#politics#lobbying#legislation#government#bospoli#billtracking

Evidence Piling Up (Part2) Dateline – Supreme Court v Thursday, February 8, 2024 - Heard arguments for and against banning Trump from the ballot in Colorado. We await the answer. v Tuesday, February 13, 2024 – Trump asks the Supreme Court to reverse the DC Circuit Court’s unanimous ruling on immunity, removing any doubt that he can stand trial for his crimes. The dates of trials will wander the calendar, and justice will take its sweet time in finding a verdict. We cannot expect the courts to do our voting. We must prepare to act and act boldly. It is our “constitutional responsibility” to vote and keep our democracy alive. From the city manager up, we need to identify those seeking election who want to continue the MAGA movement and work to deny them our vote. It is no longer party-line politics. Even Independents cannot rely on conservative segmentation of the ticket. We must vote for and protect democracy from the malignant members of chaos. Respectfully, William C. Joyce III Former Republican hoping to have a party to come home to. PLEASE SHARE THIS – get the message out… Printable versions of these documents can be found here: https://lnkd.in/gVfnHr5q  

14A3 Ballot Disqualification Not my desired outcome but … SCOTUS will look for something, anything to hang its hat on. The SCOTUS default is to avoid a ruling on the merits of a case, in this case such as defining insurrection, officer, oath. In the Colorado case they can point to the Primary process that enables a party to select a nominee for the election ballot through the votes of Republicans and Independents only, and conclude this is not the ballot contemplated by the 14Th Amendment and the action is thus premature. However, if they want to effect the matter nationwide, SCOTUS will find that 14A3 is not self executing. States have legislation that enable it to disqualify state representatives for a violation of 14A3. However, POTUS and VPOTUS are the only 2 officers that are elected nationwide. SCOTUS could conclude that the authors would not have intended that individual states could determine this disqualification leading to a situation which was not uniform nationwide. Thus SCOTUS could determine that 14A3 is not self-executing and that Congress needed to have adopted legislation that would implement a process for disqualification for POTUS and VPOTUS.

Most of the people are rendering their analysis that SC’s decision of nullifying its earlier verdict on 63-A is jurisprudentially correct but its timing makes its flawed. Though malafide intent behind yesterday’s order is manifested in the fact that SC decided this appeal at a time when govt needs votes to pass a proposed unconstitutional constitutional amendment but reversing earlier decision on 63-A is jurisprudencially flawed as well in my opnion. According to legal experts, SC’s 2022 decision is akin to rewriting constitution to which I disagree. 2022’s judgement of not counting defectors’ vote was not to rewrite the constitution but to fulfill the actual constitutional objectives in the insertion of 63-A. The guarantee provided in 63-A against horse trading or floor crossing is redundant if the vote of defective elements is counted against their party policy because that vote actually fulfills all purposes which were apparently blocked by the 63-A. Defectors of a party are of no use for an opposing party ( either government or opposition) if their vote is not counted against party guideline. In an already fragile parliamentary political structure, decision by recent bench is likely to further weaken the parliamentary system by making possible for any government in future to pass any legislation regardless of having no clear mandate or majority in parliament and by making possible for any opposition in future to oust very easily any elected government through horse trading with the help of agencies. Finally, yesterday’s judgement could overturn or change the dynamics of Public Will in parliament manifested through general elections. Opinion of M. U. AADIL on the latest SC decision w.r.t Article 63-A of Constitution

🌟 Did you know? The Legislature is the branch of government responsible for making laws and representing the people’s interests. 🏛️✨ It consists of elected officials who debate, draft, and vote on legislation that affects the nation, state, or local communities. In the U.S., the legislature is divided into two main parts at the federal level: the Senate and the House of Representatives, together forming Congress. At the state level, most legislatures have a similar structure, with a Senate and a House or Assembly. Understanding the role of the legislature helps us see how laws are created and how our elected representatives work to shape public policy. Know your power! 🗳️ #Legislature #Civics101 #TheFUNManifesto