Replies

The constitution was last amended in 1992. That means that people sitting in the congress today, like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and robert Byrd, are framers of the constitution. This fact has importance in the "original intent" versus judicial activism debate. If people want the constitution changed, they can amend it if they have enough votes. It is not unrealistic to demand that the constitution be amended only by the method provided in the document, it is difficult (and should be) but not impossible. It was done as recently as 1992. The reason the left wants to appoint activist judges who will discern new meanings never put there is that they don't have the votes to change the constitution. Thus, the urge to judicial activism is clearly anti-democratic and seeks to impose judicial tyranny on the people.

Source: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h924.html

The 27th Amendment is intended to prevent members of Congress from granting themselves pay raises during the course of a session. This is a refinement of Article I, Section 6, the provision granting Congress the authority to establish compensation for its membership.

James Madison introduced this idea to the First Congress, meeting in New York City in the fall of 1789. Congress passed the proposed amendment by the necessary two-thirds vote, but three-fourths of the states did not ratify the measure until 1992. Over the years various states would approve the proposal, but new states had joined the Union, keeping the ratification standard out of reach.

Public displeasure with Congressional pay raises in the 1980s sparked a revival of interest in the measure. In 1992 Michigan became the 38th state to ratify, pushing support past the three-fourths requirement.

Later amendment proposals have often carried an expiration date. Those measures that cannot achieve the mandated three-fourths ratification vote by the states are voided; they can be revived only by restarting the entire process.

As you can see, your argument has a major hole in it. None of the current legislators were present in the passing of the 27th Amendment through our legislature.

To properly and logically oppose judicial activism, a simple look at the Constitution's establishment of the judicial powers will point out that the judiciary holds very little power, and is constrained to the supreme laws of the land, which are the U.S. Constitution and the treaties entered into thereof.

Judicial legislation is not a power of the judiciary.

ah but the relevance of the two distinct groups- as seen in
their dis-similar idiological comport tends render the arguement silly. I shudder to think any group that is so
affected by the extraConstitutional deconstruciton called
the United Nations treaty of 1945 could compare to those who
wrote and ratified our US Constitution-on any level.However
the point made of the Constitutional process of amending
the Constitution -by the process encoded in that document is well taken. Problem is our Courts follow their own
independent construction and have since FDR increasingly
abused and even ignored the Constitution they now believe is merely what they say it is.A conundrum to be sure.