Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

Strict adherence to the Constitution, or the will of the Framers is so weird to me.  Everyone knows they had slaves, but not everyone remembers that only landowners could vote back then.  The supposed balance of the three branches only ever worked by trading favors, collusion, and by taboos against actually using the "checks" like the veto. 

The only redeeming value of the US Constitution is its malleability, as shown by the Bill of Rights and (most of) the following Amendments.  So this nigh-fundamentalist idea of trying to enforce the original intentions of its authors seems... misguided.  Often it seems like a convenient excuse, and at least that makes sense.

Well, the thing is that the Constitution comes with an explicit process for changing it just like you just mentioned, so if you want to change it, you need to use that process. The point of strict adherence to the text is that the alternative is that changes in the meaning get forced through without going through the process, and thus, forced on people who don't want them. The fact that amendments doing what various interest groups want don't get ratified means that not enough states actually want those things, and the states still have de jure primacy in the US - the US is still legally fifty different countries who each get the right to make their own decisions. So even if a majority of people want something, under the structure of the Constitution, they're not allowed to foist that interpretation on everyone else without going through the supermajority-requiring Constitutional process. Without that roadblock, the Union dissolves.

[MrRoboto75]

The founders were probably more optimistic and believed the checks and balances wouldn't have been sidestepped by all branches being compromised under the same party/goal.

[Lord Shonus]

Everyone knows they had slaves, but not everyone remembers that only landowners could vote back then.

Abolition of property requirements started in 1792 (Kentucky), and was complete by 1854 (North Carolina being the last holdout). This means that there were only 5 years under the Constitution (less, in practice, because implementing the thing in full took a long time) where it was universal, and 56 years where it existed at all. Unfortunately, most states did so by specifying that all "free white men" had the right to vote, while black men that met the property requirement had previously enjoyed the franchise.

[scriver]

Sort of like when the Swedish burghers started deciding women were no longer allowed to vote in the 1600s I guess

[Starver]

Sort of like when the Swedish burghers started deciding women were no longer allowed to vote in the 1600s I guess

Surely "meatbulls"... 

[delphonso]

The founders were probably more optimistic and believed the checks and balances wouldn't have been sidestepped by all branches being compromised under the same party/goal.

Information moved slowly at that time. Lifelong appointment of the supreme court probably hails from that - a stable decision maker when information isn't readily available.

That is no longer the case.

[McTraveller]

The rationale for lifelong appointments to USCS was also in large part to make it non-partisan. If you are appointed for life, you don't have to cater to your party or voters to stay in power, you don't have to make deals or pander, etc.  The bar to impeach a justice is quite high; as we've seen, it's pretty rare for an impeachment to result in conviction and removal from office.

So the appointment term does help the USCS be apolitical, but it doesn't guarantee it.

[Egan_BW]

It's like it defers all the position's politicalness away from the judge's term and up front to their appointment. :p

[Dostoevsky]

There's also the factors of both life expectancy and age trends having a bearing here. In the past federal court nominees (including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court) tended to be older for various reasons (e.g. experience, wisdom, ageism against the young) and had shorter life expectancies, leading to (relatively!) shorter tenures.

It's honestly a little too early to tell for sure if it'll lead to significantly longer average term length, but a recent trend has leaned towards parties preferring younger nominees for the bench in order to 'lock in' a seat for as long as possible. Which is not exactly the best reason to choose a particular person.

On the flipside, there's the already mentioned issue of judges having to 'run for reelection'. A limited, single term might help alleviate that, but then puts greater pressure on having a solid and large stable of sufficiently-qualified judges.

[Egan_BW]

Maybe once we develop negligible senescence in humans, we could give em nice round terms of a century. Hooray for theoretical technological solutions to political problems!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I am fully willing to enact the SCOTUS acceleration scenario. I'm mentioning this because I'm realizing you all sort of thought I was joking the other times I mentioned it, but it's not a joke. I'm serious.

I am completely alright with SCOTUS expanding include to all 328 million people living in the United States, as well as everyone who is dead (this is legal), all non-Americans (this is legal), and children (this is legal).

As your future Supreme Court Justice, I believe this will enact the truest form of Constitutional democracy.

[Starver]

Maybe once we develop negligible senescence in humans,

IRTA "negligable sentience", for a barest moment.

[Egan_BW]

I am fully willing to enact the SCOTUS acceleration scenario. I'm mentioning this because I'm realizing you all sort of thought I was joking the other times I mentioned it, but it's not a joke. I'm serious.

I am completely alright with SCOTUS expanding include to all 328 million people living in the United States, as well as everyone who is dead (this is legal), all non-Americans (this is legal), and children (this is legal).

As your future Supreme Court Justice, I believe this will enact the truest form of Constitutional democracy.

So, in short anything which goes up to the supreme court would get stasised into an eternal limbo state because everyone can't meet? Or would it essentially be a referendum? That sounds pretty sensible, actually. If the courts can't decide something, it gets tossed to the public to decide?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But we are the Court.

[Egan_BW]

No we're the Senate.