Ah yes, the appeal to authority (Founding Fathers) – in this case, the Founding Carpetbaggers of 1870. For if they went just a little further back to the 1835 version of our Constitution, they would see what they want to see now, written much more explicitly in Article 6, Section 3:

“III. The General Assembly shall, by joint vote of both Houses, appoint Judges of the several Courts of law and equity; but courts may be established to be holden by Justices of the Peace. Judges of the Supreme Court shall be thirty-five years of age, and shall be elected for the term of twelve years.”

http://www.tngenweb.org/law/constitution1835.html

Now, why would the “Founding Fathers” of 1870 think it necessary to change this very explicit original language to say these judges “shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state” instead of selected by the General Assembly?

Just as is noted that the vote for extending credit is “obviously” a yes/no vote, it is also obvious that electing representatives is not a yes/no vote in any other election that qualified voters participate in. What makes them think judges are different from any other elected position based upon comparable language in the Constitution. It is also obvious that the word “assent” (as in yes/no) is absent from the discussion of election of any representation.

I assume the anonymous “white paper” author (and by consent the messenger judges) also see no conflict with the only body that can remove the judges from office is made up of those bad, “gifted politicians” that selected them for a yes/no vote. Instead, the judges would have them “embrace the full measure of [their] lawful authority”.

I’ll give an honorable mention for the butt-kissing and appeal to pride of the legislator to not give up their absolute rule. However, it is painfully obvious that the anonymous author (and the judges who carry his water) don’t understand that the government is of the people and made to serve the people – not have absolute rule over them, dictating which persons will be allowed to be their representation.

That would take going back to 1870, forcing any voter to take Lincoln’s Amnesty Oath and forced voting for the supplied Republican candidate – a yes/no vote if you will.

By Eric Holcombe on 04.23.09 11:55 am

I just want to know if the good judge took the day off on vacation or if he collected his pay.

By BCB on 04.23.09 4:09 pm

Would he be allowed to engage in political things while on the tax payers payroll?

By BCB on 04.24.09 8:05 am