Removal by address: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
s |
++ |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The [[Massachusetts Constitution]] states that "judicial officers...shall hold their offices during good behavior...provided nevertheless, the governor, with consent of the council, may remove them upon the address of both houses of the legislature."<ref>Massachusetts Constitution, Part the Second, Chapter III, Article I.</ref> In other words, if the Senate and House of Representatives both request that a judge be removed from office, the Governor can remove the judge with the approval of the Governor's Council. | The [[Massachusetts Constitution]] states that "judicial officers...shall hold their offices during good behavior...provided nevertheless, the governor, with consent of the council, may remove them upon the address of both houses of the legislature."<ref>Massachusetts Constitution, Part the Second, Chapter III, Article I.</ref> In other words, if the Senate and House of Representatives both request that a judge be removed from office, the Governor can remove the judge with the approval of the Governor's Council. | ||
Unlike with [[impeachment]], no reason is required for removals by address. Although legislative hearings are traditionally held during consideration of bills of address, there is no formal requirement that a person subject to removal receive a hearing.<ref name="froth">{{cite journal|last1=Frothingham|first1=Louis A.|title=The Removal of Judges by Legislative Address in Massachusetts|volume=8|issue=2|journal=The American Political Science Review|publisher=American Political Science Association |pages=216–221|month=May|year=1914|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1946231|doi=10.2307/1946231}}</ref> | |||
== List of uses == | == List of uses == | ||
== | == Criticism and reform efforts == | ||
=== 1820 Constitutional Convention === | |||
During the [[Constitutional Convention of 1820]], some delegates proposed a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote of both houses for removal by address. The proposal was rejected by a majority of delegates.<ref name="froth"/> | |||
Another amendment stipulated that subjects of address receive a fair hearing before legislative action and that a public reason for removal be given. This amendment was adopted by the legislature, and it was bundled with an amendment limiting legislative power to request advisory opinions from the [[Supreme Judicial Court]]. The bundled amendment was rejected by voters at the subsequent ratification election.<ref name="froth"/> | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
| Line 11: | Line 17: | ||
* {{cite journal|last1=Nugent|first1=John T.|title=Removal of Judges by Legislative Action|volume=6|issue=1|journal=Journal of Legislation|pages=140–152|year=1979|url=https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol6/iss1/12|publisher=Notre Dame Law School|location=Notre Dame, Indiana}} | * {{cite journal|last1=Nugent|first1=John T.|title=Removal of Judges by Legislative Action|volume=6|issue=1|journal=Journal of Legislation|pages=140–152|year=1979|url=https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol6/iss1/12|publisher=Notre Dame Law School|location=Notre Dame, Indiana}} | ||
* {{cite journal|last1=Onello|first1=Harriet Holzman|title= The Massachusetts Bill of Address: Due Process Considerations of Judicial Removal|volume=13|issue=5|journal=Suffolk University Law Review|publisher=Suffolk University Law School|pages=1319–1385|year=1979|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/sufflr13&i=1415}} | * {{cite journal|last1=Onello|first1=Harriet Holzman|title= The Massachusetts Bill of Address: Due Process Considerations of Judicial Removal|volume=13|issue=5|journal=Suffolk University Law Review|publisher=Suffolk University Law School|pages=1319–1385|year=1979|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/sufflr13&i=1415}} | ||
* {{cite journal|last1=Black|first1=Henry Campbell|title=Removal of Judges on Legislative Address|volume=2|issue=3|journal=The Constitutional Review|publisher=National Association for Constitutional Government|pages=182–188|month=July|year=1918|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tcr2&i=188}} | * {{cite journal|last1=Black|first1=Henry Campbell|title=Removal of Judges on Legislative Address|volume=2|issue=3|journal=The Constitutional Review|publisher=National Association for Constitutional Government|pages=182–188|month=July|year=1918|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tcr2&i=188}} | ||
<!--* {{cite journal|last1=|first1=|title=|volume=|issue=|journal=|publisher=|pages=|month=|year=|url=|doi=}}--> | <!--* {{cite journal|last1=|first1=|title=|volume=|issue=|journal=|publisher=|pages=|month=|year=|url=|doi=}}--> | ||
Revision as of 19:06, 12 July 2025
Removal by address is a process by which the Legislature, Governor, and Governor's Council may remove state judges from office.
The Massachusetts Constitution states that "judicial officers...shall hold their offices during good behavior...provided nevertheless, the governor, with consent of the council, may remove them upon the address of both houses of the legislature."[1] In other words, if the Senate and House of Representatives both request that a judge be removed from office, the Governor can remove the judge with the approval of the Governor's Council.
Unlike with impeachment, no reason is required for removals by address. Although legislative hearings are traditionally held during consideration of bills of address, there is no formal requirement that a person subject to removal receive a hearing.[2]
List of uses
Criticism and reform efforts
1820 Constitutional Convention
During the Constitutional Convention of 1820, some delegates proposed a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote of both houses for removal by address. The proposal was rejected by a majority of delegates.[2]
Another amendment stipulated that subjects of address receive a fair hearing before legislative action and that a public reason for removal be given. This amendment was adopted by the legislature, and it was bundled with an amendment limiting legislative power to request advisory opinions from the Supreme Judicial Court. The bundled amendment was rejected by voters at the subsequent ratification election.[2]
References
- Kominers, Paul (December 2024). "Judge Day's Case: A Historical Account of Commonwealth v. Harriman". Massachusetts Law Review 105 (2): 39–47. https://massbar.org/docs/default-source/publications-document-library/massachusetts-law-review/2024/mlr-v105-n2.pdf.
- Nugent, John T. (1979). "Removal of Judges by Legislative Action". Journal of Legislation (Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame Law School) 6 (1): 140–152. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol6/iss1/12.
- Onello, Harriet Holzman (1979). "The Massachusetts Bill of Address: Due Process Considerations of Judicial Removal". Suffolk University Law Review (Suffolk University Law School) 13 (5): 1319–1385. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/sufflr13&i=1415.
- Black, Henry Campbell (July 1918). "Removal of Judges on Legislative Address". The Constitutional Review (National Association for Constitutional Government) 2 (3): 182–188. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tcr2&i=188.
- ↑ Massachusetts Constitution, Part the Second, Chapter III, Article I.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Frothingham, Louis A. (May 1914). "The Removal of Judges by Legislative Address in Massachusetts". The American Political Science Review (American Political Science Association) 8 (2): 216–221. doi:10.2307/1946231. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1946231.