When I wrote my diatribe, I immediately thought of the problem of how does one define “Landmark”, and hosestly don’t have a ready response.
I regards to RoeVWade...if what I proposed was in effect when the RoeVWade decision came down...it would NEVER have been ratified by 3/4 of the states at that time. Obviously, I’m not proposing that the power be made retroactive. And honestly, I’m just talking....I understand such veto power by states could be dangerous and a two edged sword. It just troubles me that the court has evolved into a de facto constitutional ammender based upon some wacky rulings....and there was no rapid mechanism to shut them down. Oh well, as long as humans run things...there will be flaws in any system.
My point is that requiring 3/4ths of states to ratify Supreme Court decisions goes both ways: there are enough traditionally liberal states to block any Supreme Court decisions that move the nation to the right and there are enough traditionally conservative states to block any decisions that would move the nation to the left, hence stalemates in the middle.
I like our system the way the Founders envisioned it despite its obvious imperfections. If we need changes, let’s use those 3/4ths votes in Congress and in the state legislatures to actually amend the Constitution and let the judiciary be stay separate from overt political influence.
“I like our system the way the Founders envisioned it despite its obvious imperfections.”
I concurr....however I don’t think the founders envisioned many judges as they are today. They are already “political.” Many of our SCOTUS judges lack a fundamental respect for honoring the original intent of the document and its ammendment. They have often taken it upon themselves to “ammend” the constitution by their rulings. And make no mistake....when a ruling suddenly creates a “right” or takes away a “right” not previously seen by those before us....then they have ammended the constitution. When the legislative body attempts to change the constitution, they much get 2/3 vote in both houses and then 3/4 of the States must ratify. This is a pretty good check on legislative caprice. However, there is NONE on judical caprice. I don’t think the founders intended that at all.
Whatever, despite its flaws I do agree that it is better to leave it as it is.