Flags are being flown at half-staff across the nation as a reminder. The act is a mark of respect for a high official in the our country's highest court. Regardless of political or ideological leanings, Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely death is an occasional and tragic loss in the Judicial Branch, one that has an almost surreal tone to it. We may be wont to believe that Supreme Court Justices work forever at their post, as they, by law, are given such power if they could utilize it. They hold the power to make landmark decisions in favor of politics, society, and personal ambition. Justices can have a "strict" or "loose" understanding of the Constitution, and naturally disagree with each other on many issues.These are givens, and we can understand as a conservative patriarch that Justice Scalia was embroiled in these debates, either to much criticism or praise.

But again, regardless of political meanderings or social tensions, a highly active and influential doctor of the law was buried recently, and along with his passing there is a vacant seat on the bench, and another bitter hardship between the isles. And guess what? It involves the President against an unrelenting and skeptical Republican Congress, and a questioning of Obama's ambitions in such a situation.

It boils down to a simple thing: Conservatives do not want to see a liberal (and controversial) president appoint a new Justice, because it is an election years, and also because that would be stacking the deck in favor an already troublesome party. On the other hand, Democrats see this move as proof that Republicans have no regard for the law, except when it suits them. My response to both is that the answer lies in the ink of the Constitution.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution spells out in plain language its requirements in regard to both the President's and the Senate's obligations in electing a Justice:

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court..."

It is here that the President can find his privileged right and limitations, and where the Senate can find its overriding power. Both are not to be regarded in conflict with each other, but a part of the necessary checks and balances.

An improper reading of the clause is not inherent in the actual words, but in supposing the ambitions of the parties facing it. What I mean by this is that a President may be looking to "stack the deck", and the Senate is to prevent that favoritism. What is happening in the current state of Limbo is not the same. Indeed, it is the opposite that is taking place, with much innocence to be put on President Obama than the negativity that has been thrown around.

The President has a duty to nominate Scalia's successor, regardless if he/she is a Democrat and supports the President and what he has done. It is to be his duty to also objectively consider the nomination's merits and experience in the Courts, and to perhaps make a value judgement on her rulings and convictions, granted. But even still, it is to his discretion until the Senate comes in.

You could see this coming from a mile away. A Republican-controlled Senate is likely never to "consent" to the appointment of a liberal-leaning candidate. The current Republican Party is on a role of confidence, and that is why they want to postpone the election of Scalia's successor until Donald Trump or Ted Cruz becomes President. They are united against the President's agenda, and can't bear for it be potentially proliferated with s sympathetic vote in the Senate.

But it is not the will of fear and hatred that can override the law and the duty that is bestowed upon the President. Nothing can supercede the urgency of such an event, and nothing can highlight the importance of securing one Justice. In volatile political climates, continuity is everything. The President must (and has) asserted his right to nominate a new Justice, and has sought nothing further.

The Senate has sought to halt the process, and thus has willingly overstepped its boundaries on checks and balances. And to initiate this controversyjsut in the wake of Justice Scalia's passing is an affront to dignity and respect. Just simply comply with the law that is sacred to you and carry out the process, and a resolution will find its way.

And one thing that both isles can remember: change and succession still is a necessary thing. And one thing to realize: by inviting overt ambition, they don't help the cause.