Posted on 01/01/2024 9:50:50 AM PST by Nextrush
How about state’s appointing their two senators and being able to recall them anytime they want? Because that’s how it was originally set up.
Not the real problem. The problem is that the courts will not police themselves — kinda like the Catholic church and priests that violate their vow to their Gawd.
Courts below the SCOTUS routinely disobey SCOTUS rulings. But, SCOTUS refuses to do anything to FORCE the courts to comply.
E.g., SCOTUS passes laws on 2nd amendment and state courts and/or Fed courts just ignore it. Disobedient courts should be dissolved.
You mean, like Athena?
đź‘Ťđź‘Ť
This Israeli Supreme Court decision was leaked to the public the other week just like the Supreme Court abortion decision was leaked in advance in the USA last year.
The powers that be knowing the emotions attached to both so the early leakage to defuse tensions and shock early.
Well, the rule of judges does come before the rule of kings.
Take heed, America.
... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Are you safe? Are you happy?
“How about two thirds of the State Supreme Courts over-ruling the SCOTUS?”
It’s always bothered me that a small group of unelected people get to make the final decisions.
I would prefer the following...
1. that the Supremes not be allowed to pass judgements on laws passed by the Legislature and signed by the president. IOW, undo Marbury v Madison. And...
2. That laws can only be passed by supermajorities of both houses of congress.
The rational behind number 2 is a realization that every law passed is a restriction of freedom - it defines what you can’t do or what you must do. I’m not an advocate of unlimited freedom - that would be the law of the jungle. But I think there should be overwhelming public support (greater than a simple majority) before our freedom our curtailed by laws. And that overwhelming public support can be represented by supermajorities of congressmen.
Every state should also follow this rule.
This change would drastically reduce the number of laws passed each year that saddle us with more dos and don’t. It would change our system from simple majority rule to supermajority rule.
What do you think?
Duh constitooshin is unconstitooshinal on account of we sez so. So dat’s dat.
in addition to its problems with Fakestinian terrorist murder gang attacks, Israel is afflicted by a tyrannical hard-leftist court
(there can never be any genuine representative government (or even “democracy”) in Israel...no matter how highly this is valued by the citizens
so long as a runaway communistic court thinks it has the authority to over=rule basic laws enacted by the parliament (knesset) in response to vote of the citizens
I predict that..not now but when the IDF is able to finally get rid of the damn terrorists....one of the first things that Jerusalem will do is reform/replace this out-of-control “court”
remembering that just courts dispensing honest justice are a PRIMARY imperative of Judaism
What the hell good does a SOLID constitution do when TYRANTS n robes don’t uphold it!! We have a very SOLID constitution YET it has become nothing more than toilet paper!!! NO ONE is doing a damn thing to uphold the document NO ONE!!
“do what’s necessary to enforce it.
Please elaborate.”
The other side’s motto is “by any means necessary”. It’s worked wonders for them!
We should adopt the same motto and apply it with the same vigor and zeal to promote and fight for our interests.
What’s depressing is, even though we have the numbers we lack the will.
You are ignoring the distrtibution of powers under Federalism and the dangers of empowering SCOTUS, as the Warren Court admirably demonstrated ordering States to redraw their Constitutions per Reynolds v. Sims or Baker v. Carr.
Concentrating power is an abomination to the Constitution. Nor is force necessary, as Natural Law competition does a dandy job of exposing such foolishness.
How about state’s appointing their two senators and being able to recall them anytime they want?
Giving up Bruen or Heller isn't worth that.
Dumping the 17th goes without saying. Good luck finding 3/4 of the States to do that now. Nor does it do diddly about a rogue court.
Israel is not actually a democracy. It is an Aristocracy or Oligarchy of the Supreme Court. There is no Constitution to base decisions on so the SC bases its decisions on the “necessity” to retain actually total power.
If thy had established a clear and concise written Constitution it would be Socialist through and through.
With a 2/3 majority needed to pass a law, I doubt very much either of those would have made it as laws in the first place.
And when you consider all the other bad rulings the Supremes have done over the years, undoing Marbury v Madison should be a no brainer, provided you require supermajorities to pass any laws.
Handwave.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.