States need to realize that when this amendment is ratified, any time the federal government infringes on their Chief's rights that confrontation needs an official way of being resolved.
For example there was a strange moment in US history when President Andrew Jackson quipped [paraphrase], “Let the supreme Court enforce its own ruling.”
I recommend that it be specified that ...
“It is unconstitutional for any federal employee, federal judge, federal law enforcer, and any member of US armed forces to interfere with state enforcement of the CSE’s enumerated authority. And it is the duty of all governors to offer assistance in such enforcement in the form of state police, the national guard, or even through seeking patriotic voluntary payment of private investigators to gather information that the CSE wishes to have.”
Something along those lines. Since military forces swear to uphold the Constitution, that should ‘do the trick’.
Also it would be shrewd of the states to codify the right to dismiss or replace their current CSE at any time prior to the limited term. They might also consider allowing the Chief to choose his or her Lt. Chief State Executive. But the Lt. should be incapable of replacing his boss prior to the ending term without the Chief's endorsement [unless it is due to death or incapacity]. And the Lt. should not have a vote in determining incapacity. This way the two are natural allies, and the CSE would not be threatened if his Lt. gains experience.
[As one historic example, the Vice Presidency can at times be a useful post, but not until after the position was reformed after Adams. And if the President were more sure of loyalty, the Vice President could play more of a role.]
The states should also include the right to collectively agree on a choice in advance of who could ‘fill the slot’ in a smooth transition at the end of the CSE’s term. But it should not be automatic that the Lt. Chief State Executive is the ‘anointed one’ if no one is chosen. That could result in some convoluted shadow oligarchy.
Our nation would be better off to risk occasional lapses even if no CSE is at the helm until the majority of states agree on someone.
I recommend that tainted judges also be banned from being lobbyists, from entering Washington DC [to prevent underground lobbying], from educating college students, from entering college property [to prevent underground education], from accepting money from speeches, from book advances, from being involved in the writing of college text books [like Woodrow Wilson], and from even being a small claims court judge let alone any other kind of judge. They may be lawyers, but not in federal courts.
The Chief State Executive could write lists of federal and state court opinion that should be tainted.
[I add ‘state’ because voters in some states are frustrated with their own courts and might ask for some help in overcoming brazen judicial-activism even at the state level. Remember those notorious words in New Jersey? “The law is silent,” Lousy-berg’s illegal campaign against Doug Forrester. And court meddling of state budgets and prisons. Just an option for state legislators to ponder.]
‘Tainted’ would mean that the court opinion is arguably unconstitutional and is currently not a worthy ‘precedent’ in a court of law. The majority of legislators [in each state] have three options. They might support the entire list as ‘tainted’, agree to a partial list as ‘tainted’, or reject the list outright.
Each tainted opinion counts as a mark against the judge who either wrote the opinion or concurred with it.
But the judge can appeal to the state attorneys general if the tainted opinion had sited precedents that were not themselves tainted at the time of that opinion. If the state attorneys general agree, then they must make a speech with the video archived online.
The Chief State Executive may also decide in advance to pardon the judge for any particular ‘taint’ [since it is arguably due to a flawed precedent]. Then needless angst is avoided, and that taint would not ever count as a mark against the judge.
If a judge accumulates three marks, he or she is suspended without pay for three months and then personally tainted, impeached, and removed by default. The three months is an opportunity to have marks removed if possible and avert personal tainting.
So ultimately the marks will stack up against the ‘pioneers’ of unconstitutional interpretation.
There is the matter of federal court vacancies, especially early-on. Just imagine it. President Ebola could parade a thousand radicals that are all rejected by the Chief State Executive.
One solution would be to allow the House to nominate supreme Court justices competitively. Then the President's nominee could debate the House nominee until the CSE chooses one.
As for the Senate, that body has lost a lot of respect lately. So what role it might play, I don't suggest any at the moment. When there is national debate, critics could verbally punch so many holes in the senate that it looks like Swiss cheese when you think about the creepy nominees the Senate so eagerly approved in both the executive and the judicial branch.