[TheOtherOne]

If we are satisfied with the present system and its results we will naturally have no proposals to make. If we feel that the constitutional wreckage left by the New Deal decisions is due to the abuse of judicial power rather than to the inadequacy of the Constitution to modern needs, then we may logically demand some limitation on the power of the Supreme Court. We shall in this case need to be cautious to see that we do not create more problems than we solve. We may, however, feel that our present difficulties are due partly to an over-zealous extension of judicial power and partly to the failure of an 18th century Constitution to meet adequately the demands of the 20th century. In this case we may attempt to solve both problems by clarifying amendments to the Constitution. This will not only modernize the Constitution, but it will also narrow the field of judicial review by sharpening the vague clauses of the Constitution under which the Supreme Court is now engaged, almost of necessity, in the work of national policy determination.

Facinating commentary from 1936

[alessandrofiaschi]

THANK YOU, FOR YOUR WONDERFUL CONTRIBUTION! PING ME TO YOUR LIST, IF YOU HAVE ONE.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

BTRL

[Noachian]

It would seem that in 1936 the countries experiences with its Supreme Court was not as negative as it is today.

Fundamental constitutional questions such as private property, religion, and privacy for homosexuals didn't seem to be high on the court's calendar then.

Times have changed. Today's activist judges have slowly eroded the Constitution, and they will continue to do so until this country is a European clone.

We now know what can happen when people are given positions of power, and lifetime appointments without any accountability. With this history under our belts we must pressure Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the judiciary before they do any more damage.

[firewalk]

.