*removed for length*
See:
http://marvelmasterworksfansite.yuku.com/topic/458?page=1
http://marvelmasterworksfansite.yuku.com/topic/12554/t/ESSENTIALS-MAPPING-THREAD-III.html
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Supreme Court Amendment(s?)
There is almost nothing in the Constitution about the Supreme Court, or about the judicial branch in general. So we might as well establish their power to overturn unconstitutional laws within the constitution itself, but with a few tweaks.
For instance, the US Supreme Court should only be allowed to throw out federal laws, not state laws, they have their own supreme courts. However, they should be able to nullify international treaties, since those are federal. Lower courts should have the same powers.
While we're at it, we need way more circuit courts... How about starting at 50 (one per state) and adding as needed. Right now there's too much power in too few hands.
Lastly, there needs to be a fixed number of Justices in the Constitution. Right now the number of 9 is only by law and tradition, it needs to be more foundational. I propose that we should have 12, which would mean both higher turnover and less impact from a single nominee. Yes, that is an even number, which is where the Chief Justice comes in. He should vote only for tie votes (which would be less frequent with a larger court).
Now for the most controversial idea: the Chief Justice should be an elected position. I know the reasons for appointments... impartiality and all that. But think about it, the people of the USA only vote for one, ONE national office, that of the President (paired with the VP). They need more say. And there's little public influence or accountability in the Judicial branch. Making the head of that branch open to public scrutiny and approval would be good for our democratic republic, and with the actual voting power weakened, the Chief Justice would be more of a symbolic figurehead, a spokesman for the judicial system, for good or ill.
Optimally, the Chief would be elected ever four years, 2 years out of phase from the presidential elections. This would prevent it from being overshadowed by that election, and raise the profile of congressional elections.
Lurker
(yes, I do think about these things)
For instance, the US Supreme Court should only be allowed to throw out federal laws, not state laws, they have their own supreme courts. However, they should be able to nullify international treaties, since those are federal. Lower courts should have the same powers.
While we're at it, we need way more circuit courts... How about starting at 50 (one per state) and adding as needed. Right now there's too much power in too few hands.
Lastly, there needs to be a fixed number of Justices in the Constitution. Right now the number of 9 is only by law and tradition, it needs to be more foundational. I propose that we should have 12, which would mean both higher turnover and less impact from a single nominee. Yes, that is an even number, which is where the Chief Justice comes in. He should vote only for tie votes (which would be less frequent with a larger court).
Now for the most controversial idea: the Chief Justice should be an elected position. I know the reasons for appointments... impartiality and all that. But think about it, the people of the USA only vote for one, ONE national office, that of the President (paired with the VP). They need more say. And there's little public influence or accountability in the Judicial branch. Making the head of that branch open to public scrutiny and approval would be good for our democratic republic, and with the actual voting power weakened, the Chief Justice would be more of a symbolic figurehead, a spokesman for the judicial system, for good or ill.
Optimally, the Chief would be elected ever four years, 2 years out of phase from the presidential elections. This would prevent it from being overshadowed by that election, and raise the profile of congressional elections.
Lurker
(yes, I do think about these things)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)