My proposed judicial amendment

This is my proposed Constitutional judicial amendment to be

Effective October 1, 2018:
1. The jurisdiction of federal courts shall be limited to:
a. cases where the federal government or a foreign government is either the plaintiff or a defendant
b. cases where either the plaintiff or a defendant is a foreign person covered by US accredited diplomatic status,
foreign public minister, a current/former US federal Constitutional officer or current/former US federal judge
c. controversies between two or more states, upon the request of at least one
d. private civil disputes (primarily) of the District of Columbia or a federal territory or a federal reservation
e. federal copyright issues
f. patent and other federal inventive exclusivity issues
g. admiralty and maritime issues
2. A state judge may be removed from office immediately by the 75% or more vote (of each branch of) the legislature of the state
3. Any judicial action based on any activity or actionable inactivity in the state
may be voided by a 90% or more vote of a legislative branch of the state, except that federal revenue may not be reduced
4. a. No judge or judicial body or judicial action may in any way usurp the spending power of an elected government
b. No judge shall cause the expenditure of money from a state or political subdivision except as exactly specified by detailed petition of the state legislature which includes a maximum total of money to be spent and any such judicial action shall be limited to the current fiscal year
5. All consent decrees or like requiring future action or payment by a government or public entity created under law shall be forever void and none may be entered into
6. Forfeitures may only be made as part of a criminal conviction or by a jury of at least ten US adult citizens in a civil case
7. Fines and all other judicially related financial impositions such as costs against a US citizen, under the laws of a state and its political subdivisions shall not:
a. be increased for non-payment, except for simple annual interest at a rate of no more than 10% on amounts specified by law past due for at least a year
b. exceed the average income of the person for two months over the previous five calendar years or
300 times the hourly minimum wage of the citizen's state or federal government, whichever is more
c. be assessed in any 12-month period in excess of that maximum amount
d. be assessed in any one case in excess of half that maximum amount
e. be assessed for any one type in violation in any one case in excess of one-tenth that maximum amount when no living being was or could be physically injured or killed
Fines and all other judicially related financial impositions such as costs against a US citizen by the federal government shall independently be so restricted.
Congress shall have the power to further cap fines and all other judicially related financial impositions such as costs against a US citizen.
8. No local government may fine a natural person or a small [Chapter S] business more than $1,000 in any 12-month period
9. Fines and other punitive imposts of a local government in excess of 10% of its tax revenue shall be remitted to the state government
10. With respect to each state, for all persons and entities, total state and political subdivision forfeitures, fines, penalties, other punitive imposts/judgements and court/legal system charges and fees shall not exceed $150 on average per state resident per calendar year, any yearly excess to be given to the federal government (to help pay off the national debt)
11. For all persons and entities, total federal forfeitures, fines, penalties, other punitive imposts and court/legal system charges and fees shall not exceed $50*number of US persons counted in last completed census per calendar year, any yearly excess to be held in the Treasury for ten years and then distributed to the states based on the then last completed census.
12. No regulatory organization may get more than half its cost of operation in fees, fines and other exactions
13. No private punitive damage award may be levied against a natural person
14. Incarcerations may only be paid for from general income/sales taxation
15. No prisoner nor any closely related person may be charged for or pay for incarceration or correctional activity
16. Except in criminal cases involving death or alleged white collar crime or a previous bail jumper, bail may be obtained by its owner tendering as security real property in the state where the court is that was taxed at over $599 in its last property tax year
17. The appointment of counsel paid by government funds now required by Amendment VI shall be limited to capital cases and cases with charges with the total potential of imprisonment for more than a year
18. Each state shall create a new criminal counsel education system by September 15th, 2020:
a. having a two-year (or longer) program at one or more state university campus and/or in its capital city
b. having a total program student cost of less than $10,000 for each student
c. having an annual capacity of at least one place for every 50,000 residents as of the 2010 census
d. effectively covering federal and state criminal/criminal procedure/evidence law and relevant forensics
e. providing at least twenty mock trials for each student, ten of which each student acts as a prosecutor and ten where each student acts as a defense counsel
19. A drivers license of a US citizen may not be judicially restricted, suspended or revoked except for:
a. a driving related cause
b. failure to maintain legally required financial responsibility coverage or
c. failure to pay a fine within two months of its imposition, in which case the person's license can only initially be restricted for three months to driving to and from work, a scheduled job interview when the person is unemployed and scheduled or emergency medical care
20. An occupational license of a US citizen may not be restricted, suspended or revoked except for fraud, theft or an occupational related reason
21. Every new contract/agreement involving a natural person with an arbitration clause shall state: arbitration fees payable by a natural person plaintiff shall be the same as the lowest court fees that might otherwise be payable by that natural person and the party providing the arbitration clause agrees to promptly pay any additional appropriate amount
22. Attorney and collection fees in total payable by a natural person/person(s) under any new or revised consumer contract/agreement, except primarily/exclusively for legal services, or under law shall not exceed the lowest relevant governmental court fees as of January 2, 2016 for the underlying amount due and awarded
23. In any class action involving consumers, plaintiff attorney fees and other compensation in total shall never exceed 10% of the cash awards provided to the consumers
24. Congress shall have the power to regulate legal actions against small business persons, corporations, corporate officers and licensed medical practitioners/entities.
25. No legal judgement/settlement may require the provision of a loan
26. No legal judgement/settlement may require payment to a political advocacy organization in excess of the harm it has suffered
27. A corporate officer of a publicly traded corporation involved in the wrongdoing shall not be empowered to authorize a corporate legal settlement
28. The Supreme Court may not have more than nine judges
29. Judges, except those now serving/elected/appointed shall not hold judicial office after age 69.

Dollar amounts may be adjusted (for inflation in a prior calendar year) by Congress, but by no more than 3% per year.

I agree with the sentiment that we are in danger of accumulating superannuated justices, but ironically Justice Scalia . . .
I put it to you that SCOTUS justices are too important. Certainly, too important to leave to appointment/senate confirmation. Thus, I propose that Trump’s example should become enshrined in the Constitution: Trump put out a list - actually two lists - of names he would consider for SCOTUS. It worried me and pleased me at the same time. It worried me because each and every name on those lists represented a vulnerability. What if the Democrats found or synthesized a reason to oppose one of them? It was a risk.
But in the event, the Democrats passed on attacking any of them. Now, that list is all gravy. We all know how Democrats love to claim that a Republican SCOTUS nominee is “out of the mainstream” - but If - I trust, when -Trump actually nominates someone from his lists to fill the Scalia seat, “out of the mainstream” will ring hollow as a critique. In the present context, the Democrats will have to defend half (25) of their senate seats in ’18. I hope that Republicans nominate strong contenders to challenge those seats, especially the ten from states Trump won. The Democrats will have to count the cost of being cynical about a nominee whose nomination represents the fulfillment of a campaign promise to the electorate of their state.
But to the constitutional issue, IMHO presidential candidates should be able to name SCOTUS justices without senate confirmation, provided the electorate knew about the nomination prior to the presidential election. I.e., the people would confirm the nominee.
As to the superannuation issue, I would modify your proposal that justices be age-limited and that the size of SCOTUS be fixed at nine. Instead I would go for a system in which the POTUS names two justices (confirmed as above) - and the size of SCOTUS would be fixed at 11 justices. Thus, in the long run justices would be term-limited at 22 years, and each presidential election would elect two SCOTUS justices as running mates (but of course, not expected to campaign) of the POTUS and VPOTUS.
In a single term a POTUS would replace 18% of the bench; a two-term POTUS would replace 36% of it. It takes an exceptional POTUS to see his sitting VP elected to replace him, which would mean that the same party named 54% of the high court. And realistically 22 years is a good run for even a Scalia. Fixing the number of justices at only nine, the term of each justice would be 18 years, which isn’t too bad - but a two-term POtUS would name about 45% of the justices and a the party of a successful VP would name 55% of them.
My system would, I hope, tend to produce more stability on the high court. Certainly more predictability.
It is probably too much to hope for, but the Republican majority in the senate could outlaw filibustering justices who had been named for the voters in advance, as in the case of Trump’s list.

Anything the left wants is by definition anti-American and anti-Constitution as it exists today. They have already done a great deal of damage to the original intent of the founders. Why give them anything?

And by the way, the Constitution already gives Congress the right to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts. If Congress had any moral fiber left, they could fix a great deal in the next session by limiting cases the courts could hear. Don’t like flag burning? Prevent the federal courts from hearing cases concerning flag burning. Then a whole lot of states would make that problem go away.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.