I still propose a constitutional amendment which would allow a combination of the other two branches to vacate any judicial decision. Simply put, an executive order concident with a vote by both houses of congress within a statute of limitations vacates the decision. It's up to the parties who brought suit to decide whether to bring it again. There would be details, such as whether it should be a simple majority of each house or super-majority or what-not. We'd also need to determine what that statute of limitations would be. But those are trivial compared to the overarching notion of providing a check-and-balance for the courts.
Shalom.
Uhhh, this is provided for in the Constitution already. . in a way. The Judiciary has no power to enforce a ruling absent the Executive branch. Thus, if the Executive branch refuses to enforce an order and the Legislature backs it up, what can the Judiciary do. . nadda.
I've always thought that Judicial rulings on Constitutional matters was always considered 'opinion' and not 'directive' to the Legislative branch.
Even if a Judge does rule some law as 'unconstitutional', his ruling does NOT negate the law.
The changes must be made by the Legislative branch, and until that time, the law is still enforceable.
A Judge cannot enforce his opinion on Constitutionality because he/she has no way of enforcing it.
It's only the people (legislators) who allow the Judges to intimidate them into not upholding their own laws, that a judge 'enforces' their edict.
Presumably, you mean a "presidential" executive order.
With that being the case, a "presidential" executive order only has jurisdiction on federal property.
For example, President Clinton (oh, does it hurt to say that) used the presidential executive order to prevent oil drilling on federal land within the State of Utah.