Hot Button Health issues impacting campaign 2024. We begin during this womens History Month with a question on women in elected government. We ask americans of this country would be better governed if more women would be in political office. If you believe the country would be governed better with more women in office, call 202 7488000. If you thi it would be governed worse, 202 7488001. If you think it would not make a difference, 202 7488002. You can also text 202 7488003. Please include your name and where youre from. Otherwise catch up with us on x at cspanwj and on facebook, om cspan. Here is where things stand what can when it comes to women officeholders in the u. S. , representing between a quarter and a third of elected leaders in the United States women make up 29 percent of the u. S. House of representatives, 20 5 of the u. S. Senate, 24 of state governors, 33 of state legislators, 34 percent of large city mayors, and 32 percent of municipal officeholders. The question that
Constitution but i dont think often enough if any changes. Your honor, and your honor, in this situation the meaning of the cause with respect to the timing of the vacancy has been a matter of contention since the first days you are questioning my hypothesis. You have to accept my hypothesis. Lets assume it takes these clearly against you. Should i say yes, it says Something Else, but the practice for over 200 years has been Something Different and its a practice that must prevail. Fact they started with George Washington and has worked through. Yes or no. The crack this gives meaning to the constitution. You are questioning my hypothesis. I am assuming a clear text of the constitution and the practice that is contrary to it. Its extremely unlikely it wouldve eyes. I am answering. I will answer it again. The answer is given the crack is going back to the republic, the crack this should be the practice should govern, but we dont have that here. This provision has been subject to content
This would be the case where the court has immediate political impact in terms of appointees. It does. There are a lot of eyes on this case, a lot of friend of the court briefs filed because if the court had taken a certain direction with its final decision that could invalidate literally hundreds of decisions and board appointments. Lets take a look at the oral argument, the case nlrb v. Canning. We would argument first this morning in case 121281, the National Labor Relations Board v. Noel canning. General verrilli . Mr. Chief justice, and it please the Court Interpretation of the recess appointed klaus the respondent urges would repudiate the constitutional legitimacy of thousands of appointments by president s going back to George Washington, and Going Forward would diminish president ial authority in a way that is flatly at odds with the constitutional structure the framers established. Responded simply has not advanced the compelling case that would be need to strip president of
Who framed and ratified the constitution . Because if they had thought about that, theres a real chance the senate may take a twomonth break right. Over christmas. Would there be any reason why they wouldnt have wanted the recess appointment power to apply there as well as at the end of the session . Your honor, our argument does not turn on that because to us it is not a temporal question. Its a procedural one. Back then, the senate had the power not to trigger the recess. Just like today, it has the power not to trigger the recess appointments power. The difference is not in principle. Its in historical context. At the time of the framing, they wanted to trigger the recess appointments power because when they left during long periods of time, they wanted the president to be able to act unilaterally since it was very difficult for them to get back. And if they didnt trigger the power, the only way the president could act unilaterally would the only way the president could confirm nomi
One flaw with your argument is t makes the words it may happen superfluous, that the clause would mean exactly what you say it means if you took those words out. And your response, the only one i could see on the reply, your reply brief, page 13, is that those words were put in there to, quote, confine the president to filling vacancies that actually exist at the time of appointment. Now, is that did you really think they put that language in there because they were afraid the president would fill appointments that dont exist . I dont know why they put the language in there, mr. Chief justice, but it doesnt it isnt superfluous because it does serve that function one reason is because they were afraid otherwise the president would have the power, simply, when somebody died two or three years before and theyve had a big fight in congress to save up all the controversial nominations and then put them through as recess appointments. That could be one thing they didnt want to happen. I dont