The Constitution, version 2.0

WorldNetDaily / Commentary ^ | Posted: June 4, 2005 | By Alan Sears

[knarf]

" ... none of this cr@p will happen if ... "

It's OK ... you can say $h!t if you want to.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

Th@nk$ !

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yeah, and if you make less than that, you are an ignorant redneck who doesn't know what is good for yourself.

Seems as if I can't win either way...

[Jewelsetter]

LOL

[Firefigher NC]

Every young adult would be given $80,000 via a new tax on the "rich."

I could sure use that $80,000...to arm myself and prepare for a confrontation with this new socialist government. Use that money they gave you against them.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"and what's wrong with judicial term limits?"

N, I like the idea of term limits. But, where do you see that "the people" can change the Constitution? I only see the amendment process. And, exzctly what changes are you suggesting? Peace and love, George.

[B4Ranch]

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

[Noachian]

I like the idea of term limits.

Well, I think we can agree that on this point this should be serious discussion.

But, where do you see that "the people" can change the Constitution? I only see the amendment process.

The Amendment process is the proper process by which all changes to The Constitution have been made until Supreme Court judges took it upon themselves to make "unconstitutional" changes from the bench.

A good example of a judicial change to The Constitution is Judicial Review instituted by Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison. People can argue all day over that decision, but everyone agrees that it changed The Constitution without going through the amendment process.

And, exzctly what changes are you suggesting? Peace and love, George.

Limit the time any one judge can stay in office. Judges say they need "independence" which turns out to be a way to make any ruling they want without repercussion's. But, if they are limited to a twelve year term (or whatever other number can be agreed on) they keep their "independence" while limiting the amount of time they can do any constitutional damage.

Term limits also has the advantage of bypassing a do-nothing Congress because it's automatic just like the term limit on the presidency. The Impeachment process sounds good on paper, but it has never worked in the real world because it relies on Congress.

Think about the appointment process for judges as it exists now. In no other endeavor, except for a dictatorship, is a man or woman given a lifetime job, with so much power, and yet held accountable to no one. How can any people expect to remain free under such a system?

[listenhillary]

http://www.acslaw.org/misc/goals.shtml

Constitutional Interpretation and Change
Co-Chairs:

Jack Balkin, Yale Law School
Rebecca Brown, Vanderbilt University Law School
Pamela Harris, O’Melveny & Myers
Andrew Pincus, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw

Ideological conservatives have been quite successful in promoting neutral-sounding theories of constitutional interpretation, such as originalism and strict construction, and in criticizing judges with whom they disagree as judicial activists who make up law instead of interpreting it. This Issue Group will work to debunk the neutrality of those theories and expose misleading criticisms. It will also articulate effective and accessible methods of interpretation that will give full meaning to the guarantees contained in the Constitution.

---

The American Constitution Society is a non-partisan,(YOU SURE ABOUT THAT NONPARTISAN BIT?) non-profit educational organization. We do not, as an organization, lobby, litigate, or take positions on specific issues, cases, legislation, or nominations. We do encourage our members to express their views, and we work to make their voices heard, by disseminating their work to the legal community, policymakers, the media, and the public. Our members also work to connect each other with opportunities for bringing positive change to the law.

---

Today, American values, our constitutional heritage, and the freedoms and opportunities of our people are being undermined by a narrow, conservative approach to the law which lacks appropriate regard for the ways in which the law affects people's lives and that has come to dominate American law and public policy - from law school classrooms to legislative hearing rooms to federal courtrooms.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"People can argue all day over that decision, but everyone agrees that it changed The Constitution without going through the amendment process."

N, If I'm right, the Marbury case forced one Bureaucrat to do his job, as defined in his job description, and appoint another bureaucrat named by the President. Nothing more. It was the incredibly stupid {unjustified by any previous documentation in or out of the Constitution} statement by the incredibly brilliant Marshall that, {Paraphrased} "The Supreme Court is the only "interpreter" of the U.S. Constitution.", that has been used by power hungry lawyers in robes to justify the assault on the Constitution in the name of "Judicial Freedom" that only exists in the mind. But, These same lawyers have TAUGHT in the most high learning institutions that this is so. And, it just ain't. By the way, wasn't some judge named Hastings impeached, and later became a member of Congress? {Louisana or some such?} Anyway, we DO need some kind of "fixing". Peace and love, George.

[The Raven]

>>The Constitution, version 2.0

That title got a smile out of me. But it shouldn't. It's damn serious buisness.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"It's damn serious buisness."

R, INDEED it IS! We NEED to make sure our children know about this abomination. Peace and love, George.