HOW THE CONSTITUTION DESCRIBES PRIMARIES!

It doesn't! There is no reference whatever to primaries or how parties, which are likewise never mentioned, can select their candidates. In fact most of the Founding Fathers objected to parties altogether. Some conclude that Andrew Jackson was the originator of a political party system. 

So if Americans as a whole are so turned off by the primaries and political parties as they currently exist, is it not time to suggest Constitutional remedies for the concept of the two party system and the amazing amount of money that is spent by the parties? The reality is that in order to get an amendment through to ratification, there would have to be support for the change from one if not both political parties. Its kind of like drinking you own poisoned wine. 

Just or Unreasonable? Does the Constitution define . . .

Just or Unreasonable? Does the Constitution define . . .

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled on strip searches during any arrest, regardless of the severity of the offense. It was a contiguous 5-4 ruling again pitting liberal justices against Conservative. So the Constitution has been determined to allow the word "reasonable" to include such actions by police in the name of safety to law enforcement and the prison population. While the ruling is not earth shattering it does bring into question the politics of the Supreme Court, which appears to have been established as an impartial arm of government. 

Mankind doesn't really fall into an impartial category no matter how hard we try. Certainly Presidents appoint Justices based on their past rulings and philosophical makeup which is going to support that President's political views. Those appointments are one of the strongest and most enduring actions of the Presidency. 

Can this be changed? Perhaps we should let computers select candidates for the vacancies. After all, they are impartial; provided the programmers are impartial. Ah, back to the original problem!