Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Proposal for a Constitutional Amendment

Government Constitutional Amendment 2004

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 06:19 PM

I’ve seen something along these lines suggested and it strikes me as much better option than Bush’s proposed amendment.  I think it gets to the heart of the matter about not letting the judicary become the most powerful branch with the capablity to overcome the checks and balances of the system.

Quote

Amendment:
Section 1: The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of nine justices.
Section 2: A two-thirds majority is required for the Supreme Court to overturn any act of Congress or legislation of more than one state.  The legislation of a single state requires a majority ruling by the Supreme Court to overturn.
Section 3: Congress has the power to pass legislation to order the Supreme Court to hear cases appealed to the Court.
Section 4: Supreme Court Decisions may be nullified by vote of three-quarters of the Congress and then further ratification by three-quarter of the State Legislatures.

Section 1 will prevent court packing.  Section 2, 3, and 4 would be in place to restrain the judiciary.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#2 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 07:26 PM

I think more problems come from the Federal Judiciary rather the the actual US Supreme Court.  
What can we do to convince Congress to impeach or censure Activist Federal Judges?
Although I do like the general idea of this proposal.



Corwin
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#3 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 07:47 PM

Quote

Amendment:
Section 1: The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of nine justices.

Or you could just as soon state that any changes to the size or composition of the court will take effect after the presidential term in which it is offered.  At least in that case, you'd at least get a chance for the people to vote for the presidency on that issue before it goes into effect.

Quote

Section 2: A two-thirds majority is required for the Supreme Court to overturn any act of Congress or legislation of more than one state.  The legislation of a single state requires a majority ruling by the Supreme Court to overturn.

Probably the best part of the amendment.  The court needs some judicial review power, but slim majorities of nine people overriding properly passed legislation is pretty iffy.  Judicial activism needs to be reined in.

Quote

Section 3: Congress has the power to pass legislation to order the Supreme Court to hear cases appealed to the Court.

Well, in terms of leaving the number of members at nine, you may find that Congress could swamp the Court with a heavy workload.  There may well be a need to be able to increase the number of Court members and then split them up into two sessions if this gets out of control.  It could also get pretty political, and the court should do its best to avoid being force fed political cases.  If this power is to be kept under control, it should be a 2/3rds vote, just like overturning a veto.

Quote

Section 4: Supreme Court Decisions may be nullified by vote of three-quarters of the Congress and then further ratification by three-quarter of the State Legislatures.

I don't see the point.  Wouldn't that  be the same thing as amending the Constitution, just under a different name?  If you can get that much support, an amendment would be a virtual shoo in.  It might be more palatable to some people than an "amendment", but any such nullification would certainly come in as a strong judicial precedent of same caliber as a real amendment.  

Conclusion:

I'd vote for this amendment, but I'd hope some things would be altered to be more practical.  There is something to be said for restraining the legislative and current popular opinion somewhat.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Government, Constitutional Amendment, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users