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.
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?