The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
How would you like to change the U.S. Constitution?
The Scribe
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
How would you like to change the United States Constitution?
I would like to add a Constitutional amendment designed to weaken the power of the Supreme Court in three ways:
First, it would require a two thirds majority for any Supreme Court decision. If something is “unconstitutional†it should be obviously so.
Second, it should be possible to overturn any Supreme Court decision with a two thirds majority in each House of Congress and a Presidential signature. Overturning a Supreme Court decision should not require a Constitutional amendment.
Third, there should be recall elections for unpopular Supreme Court justices. Many states already have these.
I would also like to end the Senate filibuster and give the President line item veto power. If the Supreme Court was weakened, these would not require Constitutional amendments.
I would like to add a Constitutional amendment designed to weaken the power of the Supreme Court in three ways:
First, it would require a two thirds majority for any Supreme Court decision. If something is “unconstitutional†it should be obviously so.
Second, it should be possible to overturn any Supreme Court decision with a two thirds majority in each House of Congress and a Presidential signature. Overturning a Supreme Court decision should not require a Constitutional amendment.
Third, there should be recall elections for unpopular Supreme Court justices. Many states already have these.
I would also like to end the Senate filibuster and give the President line item veto power. If the Supreme Court was weakened, these would not require Constitutional amendments.
The Scribe on
0
Posts
Why?
That would make the letter of the law largely irrelevant.
Requiring a two thirds majority would make it more difficult for Supreme Court justices to read their value systems into the words of the Constitution, and invent rights not intended by the authors.
I can't think of an example for such a right(you're welcome to list some) and my "why" was actually asking "Why "unconstitutional" laws/actions should be obvious"?
The presumed "right" to an abortion is based on a presumed "right" to privacy. Because the Constitution does not mention privacy it does not protect it. Perhaps it should, but it does not. Roe v Wade was a very flimsy piece of legal reasoning. Unfortunately, it was made by a 7 to 2 majority, so it would not have been prevented by what I propose. Still, it was an egregious example of judicial activism.
Keep in mind, the intention of the Constitutional amendment I propose is to make the Federal government more democratic.
Anything not obvious is judicial tyranny.
And that's just bullshit.
Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The people should decide what rights they want, and what rights they want to give others. The decision should be made in the ballot box, and not by judicial fiat.
Is that how you respond to a rational argument?
Badass move.
/facepalm
I trust the majority more than I trust any elite. As long as the Supreme Court makes decisions one agrees with it is easy to pretend that it consists of nine sages who spend their days poring over ancient manuscripts in search of the absoulute truth. The reality is that they project values that are often unpopular into the Constitution. These are often values not originally intended by the authors.
So what if they weren't intended by the authors? Since they cannot remove rights, only grant them, I don't lose any sleep over what the supreme court does. So far the only objectively "bad" thing the supreme court has done (as far as I know) is their gross overextension of emminent domain. This really pales in comparison to the the large pile of good they've done.
Also your example is terrible. Seriously awful.
LoL: failboattootoot
More than any other single event, Roe v Wade lead to the creation of the religious right. This is a mass movement that causes lower middle class whites to vote against their economic interests by voting Republican.
Nevertheless, the sword cuts both ways. When conservatives talk about "returning to Constitutional government," they mean repealling most of the economic reforms of the twentieth century. If John McCain wins the next election, a conservative (actually a reactionary) majority on the Supreme Court may do just that. If that happens, liberals may come to approve of the Constitutional amendment I propose.
LoL: failboattootoot
- Supreme Court decisions should have to be overturned by Constitutional amendment if they've found that your actions are unconstitutional. That's the point of having the check there. Letting the legislators say "nuh uh" is ridiculous.
- Politicizing your judiciary doesn't give you anything good. My state has that, and our judiciary blows. Here's a hint: we just executed a man in contravention of national law. There's a whole thread on it.
- I thought the filibuster was procedural, not codified, but it seems like giving the President a brand new power is something you should amend your constitution for. Because, you know, it's where the power stems from.
As for abortion...rights are retained by the people. The government isn't given power to tell you what medical procedures you can have performed. Keeping it from being illegalized by states saves us from a whole load of back alley abortion grief.
I am bothered by it. If environmental regulations and minimum wage laws are overturned many other people will be also.
The point is I am trying to make in this thread is that the Supreme Court is a loose cannon. Depending on it for anything is like depending on an enlightened despot. The problem with enlightened desposts is that enlightment cannot be institutionalized, but despotism can be and is. Once again, I have more trust in the voters, even though my candidates often lose elections.
The reason why the Supreme Court is usually so divided is that the choices they get are the hard ones or the controversial ones. You don't just allow anything that isn't totally blatantly illegal to be illegal. Eventually you have the law clarified, and then it's no longer a gray area. The entire system of law our nation is built upon works upon that.
As for how I'd change the constitution, I'd change the way the house is elected to be proportional per state, with around a 15% barrier for getting a seat.
I do not. Especially since a large chunk of them shoot themselves in the foot, as you yourself have noted. Doubly so since NPR did a piece on a study that showed 52% of Americans think The Bible should be used as the basis for our laws. Triply so since the terms "barbacueability" and "secret Muslim" have had to become common vernacular in describing how a terrifyingly large portion of Americans vote.
To be a little more on topic, I'd apply the 21st to most drugs instead of just alcohol. And I'd do something about gerrymandering. What, I don't know. Tentatively I'd require all the districts to have an equal number of people, but I'm not particularly sure that would solve any of the problems with the system.
LoL: failboattootoot
I am confident that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 retains broad, popular support, and will not be repealled by Congressional action. I am more concerned that a reactionary Supreme Court will find that it violates the Tenth Amendment. This says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." A reactionary Supreme Court not weakened by the amendment I propose could find all of the civil rights legislation that was passed during the 1960's to be violations of federalism.
*
Do you follow the U.S. Congress much?
Also, broadly, the Constitution as originally understood was all about taking power out of the hands of the huddled masses and putting it in the hands of elites. So the implicit argument you're making sort of falls flat on those grounds, too.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
But courts are expected to make a decision moreso than take action, and therefore it sort of has to be a majority rule. Otherwise 5-4 doesn't really make a decision.
Though limiting our presidents to a single, slightly longer term does sound appealing. They should be solving problems, not running for re-election.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
I think you need to go back to Marbury v Madison. Talk about judicial activism.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I'd change the constitution by adding a balanced budget amendment. I'd also like to lessen the President's war powers.
I'd also change presidential pardons, to disallow them within 45 days of an election.
Term limits for both houses of congress.
I agree on the line item veto. I'd also put term limits on elected Congress members as well.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Except that, if they were to actually do anything truly terrible it would be overturned with an amendment. The courts aren't meant to be as easily overturned by congress as the president is.