I see there is somewhat of a movement to change the tenure of the supreme court. There are those that wish to end lifetime appointment. This isn't anything new, it has been proposed before, mostly by the political party that wasn't currently in the seat of power. I read a great number of comments about this and the arguments for the change. Those for maintaining the current lifetime tenure are fewer or at least I see fewer postings about that. I do have to wonder if that is the reality or is it what social media wishes me to see? There is much distrust with the news outlets and social media outlets these days. I admit I have trust issues with both.
I don't think we should change what the framers of the constitution instituted. Call me old fashioned, stuck in the past or whatever, but I believe those men were quite capable. I also believe they were acting in the best interest of the country. Or at the very least the country they wished to create. Idealistic? I certainly hope so, you do have to be idealistic to risk your life and fortunes on a concept. We must remember that the American Republic was a somewhat new concept, although based upon old principles. When they signed that declaration it was like signing their own death warrants. Some lived to write and debate on the Constitution, some did not. Independence wasn't secured until 1786. The final draft of the Constitution wasn't signed until September the 17, 1787. It wasn't written hastily or decided upon easily. Each and every point was thoroughly discussed and debated. What is the argument for changing that? Political expediency.
The function of the supreme court is to do what? It's primary function is to rule on the constitutionality of proposed legislation or current legislation being challenged. The supreme court is the authority. Still we mustn't forget that the court doesn't make law, it only issues an opinion on the constitutionality of law. Lifetime tenure was instituted to provide stability to the system. Now we all know the first amendment. You hear about that all the time. So in lieu of a deity being the ultimate judge the supreme court was established. It's purpose is to provide consistency, uniformity and stability. The court issues their opinion and it is up to congress to either accept that ruling or reject it. Much the same way we might individually accept or reject the teachings of a deity. Only the eighteenth amendment has been repealed in our history. I'd say that was pretty stable. There have been six additional amendment proposed but none were ratified by the states.
Every now and again there are those that push to have the court changed in some fashion. Sometimes it is just the removal of lifetime appointments, sometimes they want to add members. The number of justices changed nine times before 1869, as low as five and as numerous as ten. The court has remained at nine since 1869. I don't believe we should change that either. The reason for changing the court is obvious, it is anticipation of a different ruling. Those proposing the change want, well a change. The only way to effect that change is to change the court. It is sorta like rewriting the Bible, or at the very least reinterpreting that authoritative document to make it align with your wishes. And that is why we have lawyers! They were called Pharisees at one particular time. But that is just an aside to the real issue. The real issue is listening to the authority in the first place. When that authority doesn't say the things you wish to hear we humans have a tendency to replace the authority. That's why the founding fathers made a seat on the court a lifetime appointment, to provide a degree of stability to government. We call that precedent. It's very difficult to overturn a precedent. In order to do so we would need a new interpretation. The easiest way to do that is to do what? Replace the authority! That's how it works.
After the signing of the Constitution in September of 1787 Ben Franklin was asked, " Dr. Franklin what type of government have you given us? " His answer was , " A republic madam, if you can keep it." Franklin was well aware of the machinations of men having been a diplomat. He knew it would be difficult to hold onto a Republic. Need evidence? Just listen to the politicians as they speak about our DEMOCRACY. Are they using that term out of ignorance or just planting a seed? It is far easier to replace authority in a Democracy as you only require a simple majority. The 51 rule the 49. That's why we have a Republic, to avoid that pitfall. Generally speaking we require a 2/3 majority. More than likely the very reason six proposed amendment were not ratified. It's working, this concept of a Republic, if we can but keep it.
I don't think we should change what the framers of the constitution instituted. Call me old fashioned, stuck in the past or whatever, but I believe those men were quite capable. I also believe they were acting in the best interest of the country. Or at the very least the country they wished to create. Idealistic? I certainly hope so, you do have to be idealistic to risk your life and fortunes on a concept. We must remember that the American Republic was a somewhat new concept, although based upon old principles. When they signed that declaration it was like signing their own death warrants. Some lived to write and debate on the Constitution, some did not. Independence wasn't secured until 1786. The final draft of the Constitution wasn't signed until September the 17, 1787. It wasn't written hastily or decided upon easily. Each and every point was thoroughly discussed and debated. What is the argument for changing that? Political expediency.
The function of the supreme court is to do what? It's primary function is to rule on the constitutionality of proposed legislation or current legislation being challenged. The supreme court is the authority. Still we mustn't forget that the court doesn't make law, it only issues an opinion on the constitutionality of law. Lifetime tenure was instituted to provide stability to the system. Now we all know the first amendment. You hear about that all the time. So in lieu of a deity being the ultimate judge the supreme court was established. It's purpose is to provide consistency, uniformity and stability. The court issues their opinion and it is up to congress to either accept that ruling or reject it. Much the same way we might individually accept or reject the teachings of a deity. Only the eighteenth amendment has been repealed in our history. I'd say that was pretty stable. There have been six additional amendment proposed but none were ratified by the states.
Every now and again there are those that push to have the court changed in some fashion. Sometimes it is just the removal of lifetime appointments, sometimes they want to add members. The number of justices changed nine times before 1869, as low as five and as numerous as ten. The court has remained at nine since 1869. I don't believe we should change that either. The reason for changing the court is obvious, it is anticipation of a different ruling. Those proposing the change want, well a change. The only way to effect that change is to change the court. It is sorta like rewriting the Bible, or at the very least reinterpreting that authoritative document to make it align with your wishes. And that is why we have lawyers! They were called Pharisees at one particular time. But that is just an aside to the real issue. The real issue is listening to the authority in the first place. When that authority doesn't say the things you wish to hear we humans have a tendency to replace the authority. That's why the founding fathers made a seat on the court a lifetime appointment, to provide a degree of stability to government. We call that precedent. It's very difficult to overturn a precedent. In order to do so we would need a new interpretation. The easiest way to do that is to do what? Replace the authority! That's how it works.
After the signing of the Constitution in September of 1787 Ben Franklin was asked, " Dr. Franklin what type of government have you given us? " His answer was , " A republic madam, if you can keep it." Franklin was well aware of the machinations of men having been a diplomat. He knew it would be difficult to hold onto a Republic. Need evidence? Just listen to the politicians as they speak about our DEMOCRACY. Are they using that term out of ignorance or just planting a seed? It is far easier to replace authority in a Democracy as you only require a simple majority. The 51 rule the 49. That's why we have a Republic, to avoid that pitfall. Generally speaking we require a 2/3 majority. More than likely the very reason six proposed amendment were not ratified. It's working, this concept of a Republic, if we can but keep it.
No comments:
Post a Comment