Posted on 08/18/2005 2:13:44 AM PDT by alessandrofiaschi
If we amend the Constitution, it should be to add the ability to lock up the SCOTUS when they express an opinion that contradicts the plain language in the Constitution.
I'd like to see the wording of Floyd's proposed constitutional amendment.
HJ 60 IH
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the permissible uses for which private property may be taken.
Mr. ADERHOLT introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the permissible uses for which private property may be taken.
Thanks. So many palms get greased locally, I just wonder if anything like this will every see the light of day?
I don't believe, though I am not certain, that a SCOTUS appointment was originally intended to be a lifetime appointment. In any event, how about a term limit on appointments?
?....'another'.....means.... 'more laws'....are scientific...$$$$$....????....for internationalist-lawyers?
How about an amendment to protect from government intervention, PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!
This should be handled by the states and municipalities, where (conveniently) legislators, and often judges, are elected by the affected public. If the people elect creeps, they've nobody to blame but themselves if their property is snarfed for the benefit of campaign donors.
Why pass another amendment that the royal black-robes will twist and ignore?
In Kelo, five so-called justices clearly ignored the 5th and rewrote the constitution. They changed the phrase "public use" to "public interest," which is nothing more than the American version of the Marxist "common good."
The solution in this case would be for congress to impeach these five Marxists and throw them off the court. I would add tar and feather, strip them of all property and ship the lot of them off to North Korea.
I'll hold my breath waiting for congress to act.
hmmm while not expressly stated as 'a lifetime appointment', Article III, Section 1, implies it by "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". That's pretty much an open door.
***In any event, how about a term limit on appointments?***
Nope can't, that would require an amendment to the Constitution.
But here's the real problem (two actually).
1) Our founding fathers as wise as they were, considered the Judicial Branch as the "LEAST dangerous to the Republic" (Alexander Hamilton) and gave it the least amount of thought.
2) Secondly, James Madison the 'father of the Constitution' could have told SCOTUS to 'go pound sand' in 1803 after Marbury v. Madison. That set the ball rolling for Judicial Power Tyranny. If Madison would have said what Andy Jackson allegedly said, things might be a lot different.
Jackson supposedly said, "Justice Marshal has made his decision - now let him enforce it."
Unfortunately, the term "public" will need to be defined.
The most important one is repeal of XVII, of course.
A second amendment using contemporary language would be good, or simply adding another clause: "It's not about duck hunting".
I'm sure there are many others.
What I see is the fierce arrogance and self importance of the legal profession. Lawyers, especially those in mandatory bar leadership, (the legal political elite) are very wrapped up in assuming the permanence of their leadership.
I can seriously see a point where a fed up public will create "some way" to ultimatly bypass the courts. Whether it is via mandatory arbitration, or mandatory mediation, or even requiring the parties communicate without lawyers FIRST.
I can even see were fed up citizens start to shut down law schools so there are no to many UNDERemployed lawyers.
At present individual constitutional amendments are the only viable way to override teh USSC. IE a federal marriage amendment is the only way to do away with the USSC authority.
Yessir on this one, and on axing XVII & fixing II (esp. the duck clause!).
The takings clause has stood between Americans and real socialism. To strengthen it this way would be marvelous.
"Yessir on this one, and on axing XVII & fixing II (esp. the duck clause!)."
Strange that nobody's mentioned XVI and XVIII (which would automatically delete XXI)...
You got that right. As some politician was pointing out a couple weeks ago - it's pretty hard to come up with any wording to derail this kelo thing because the US Constitution is already so clear on it.
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.