I respectfully disagree. My problem lies in the ambiguity with regards to the judiciary and the lack of clear, concise language needed so that everyone can understand the intent of any and all passages.
I know, people, especially lawyers, will always try to interpret things to help their client, and that is what they are paid for. I have no problem with that, as it pertains to how a civil or criminal case should be looked at; it's the re-interpretation of long-standing . . oh . . stare decisis rulings that bother me.
Maybe what I mean to say is we need to make sure there is no mis-understanding of how we mean to interpret the Constitution, and put some teeth into it by way of easier means to remove a judge from the bench and prosecute him for judicial mis-conduct for attempting to re-interpret the Constitution (see the 9th Circus, or the CSC, concerning Prop 8 for a case-study).
Good points.
How about an amendment stating:
BTW, this is NOT a “living” Constitution, you jacka$$es.
If it meant whatever a judge said it did, it would not be worth the paper it is written on.
Of course, we’d have to “dress up” the language...