Replies

Thanks very much for your comments. The debate on how to best amend the Constitution should start now.

Your comments are very valuable. Limiting the term of the tenure of the judges has some decided advantages. But also limiting the tenure of the judges is also some decided disadvantages. The question is, does the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

This is the reason why I believe that constitutional changes should be accomplished by statutory laws, not direct amendments to the Constitution.

The only way to know whether your proposal would be workable in reducing judicial activism is to make a law and try it first. The taste of the pudding is the the eating. If your proposal is included in a constitutional amendment and it does not seem satisfactory to solve the problem of judicial activism, it would be very complicated to amend a constitution.

However, if your proposal were just embodied in a statutory law, it just requires a simple majority or plurality vote in Congress to amend it. Perhaps your proposal is sound but it requires just a refinement. This would be easy if this constitutional amendment is a simple law. You could test and retest the law until you come out into a perfect law. This is easier in a statutory law than a constitutional law.

The reason why the framers of the Constitution made the tenure of the judges lifelong is because it requires a lot of experience as a judge to really make great judicial decisions. The longer the judge remains in office, the more valuable his services become to the state by virtue of his expanding experience.

Limiting the tenure of the judges would open up the judiciary to inexperienced judges who will turn out to be a headache to the state in the long run. The limitation of the tenure of the judges' term would create problems in government. These problems is what you would call the disadvantages of the constitutional amendment you are proposing.

The power to review the constitutionality of the law is given to the judiciary for practical reasons. The test of the law is really determined on how it fares in our courts. The law may seem perfect from the eyes of its creators in Congress, but really its perfection cannot be known unless it is tested in the courts. This is the reason why the courts have the power to amend the law through common law provisions. Common law are laws that are in effect by virtue of the pronouncement of the judges.

Common law seems to give the courts legislative powers to make or unmake laws. The power of the courts to legislate laws cannot be avoided in the practical art of governance. Usually, Congress customarily makes a codification of laws. Somebody in Congress makes a study of common law provisions and tries to make a amendment to existing law in the light of the laws actual experience in the courts. The codification of the law takes into account the actual court decisions with regards to the implementation of the law. Any amendment of an existing law is nothing but a codification of that law.

In practice, the codification of the law takes time. Extensive debates in and out of Congress, in the press as well as in the courts takes place before a codification of the law is proposed in Congress. Our discussion here is one form of debate on how best to effect a constitutional amendment because we are informing each other on what is the best alternative to bring about an efficient amendment to the Constitution based on our own individual study of the matter. This is the reason why your comments in very valuable to me because it educates me about constitutional law.

There has been some constitutional amendments in effect in some of the states in the United States that opened the selection of Supreme Court judges to election, but this has not solved the problem of judicial activism satisfactorily in those states themselves.

Usually, an effective constitutional amendment is composed of a series of laws not just one law.