[BocoLoco]

You know what it means to say supreme court justices will serve during good behavior? It's the quaint old way of saying it's a lifetime appointment. And why were they given life tenure? To secure their independence from the other branches, and from the democratic will.

The framing fathers were anything but naive. Good behaviour was always meant to be upholding civil conduct to the position while avoiding all high crimes and misdemeanors. It's one of those "self evident" terms, something purely analytical folks have troubles grasping. They try to attempt to embellish on it when it says what it means and means what it says. When we were 5 years old we were told by our mommies and Kindergarten teacher to be on our "best behavior". I believe we know this means: "don't do anything illegal or stupid". The framing fathers never put term limits on any position. They didn't say Congress couldn't limit terms either.

Thirteen federal judges have been impeached since 1790, the most recent of which was last year (Kent). If what you are saying is true, then we would have zero impeachments. It's not very common, but there are checks and balances in place and a clear process that the HoR and Senate follow for any executive, elected or high ranking official. Don't be fooled that there is any perfect judicial system in place. There is no such thing. The framing fathers weren't striving for perfection. They were attempting to achieve sustainable practicability. This is the difference in perspective between "I'm a scholarly nitwit" and "I'm a seasoned street brawler". The framers clearly understood the difference, choosing the latter.

The 10th amendment should be scrapped, and replaced with the earlier version that failed to pass--the one that said those powers not EXPRESSLY DELEGATED to the US belonged to the states or the people.

Why? The doctrine is plenty sufficient for all intents and purposes as it is. It sounds like you would like to see the states having more sovereign authority. If that's the case, you should be looking at Amendment XIV. It ultimately gave the federal regime more sovereign power as it ensured anything at the federal level was forced down the throats of the states, including the Bill of Rights, all tax structures, currency, and any other Constitutional statute limiting federal power prior to its ratification.

From what you've been suggesting, it sounds like you would like to see a Constitution that is a 1000 page bumbling weeble wobble to cover every single possible scenario. This is not what a Constitution is for. Congress is there to fill in the gaps where the Constitution is purposely ambiguous. The Judicial branch is there to ensure what Congress legislates works with the Constitution. It's there as a broad-sweeping guide of the law and the government structure as a whole, not an albatross that requires constant, nauseating pruning.

[Huck]

So many words, so little substance. It's real simple. I didn't say a judge can't be impeached. I said that a judge deciding a case in a way that you disagree with is not an impeachable offense. Unless there is a bribe or some overt form of corruption, it's just a decision and that's that.

It's clear from the last two paragraphs of your post that you favor the "living constitution." Because the "living constitution" doctrine is nothing more than a description of what happens when Article 3 powers meet implied powers.

As for the 14th, sure, throw it on the pile. Then light a match.