Constitutional Amendments - Apparently Not Impossible

[Berzerker]

However, the disturbing part of the article only mentions support for Congress passing legislation to "get around" the SCOTUS decision.

WTF? That's not how it works. Pass an Amendment or STFU.

yup, how dare the Constitution get in our way

hey Flash, can you explain more about Marbury and the court's role? I was under the impression Marbury said the court effectively has the power to define the Constitution.

[David Floyd]

So, you would just rather not have a democracy.

Given that we don't have a democracy, and were never intended to have one, I'm gonna have to

But yes, I absolutely do not favor democracy. Which shouldn't imply that I favor totalitarianism, either. What I'm in favor of is a system much like the US originally set up in 1783, with a highly restrictive (of government) Constitution, bicameral legislature (a people's house and a house for the States), and a Supreme Court, although I would have written Marbury v. Madison into the original Constitution.

Or just wait for the political composition of the court to change, probably would be faster.

When 80%+ of people who identify with BOTH MAJOR PARTIES oppose the SCOTUS decision, I doubt it would take all that long.

[Elok]

Given that we don't have a democracy, and were never intended to have one, I'm gonna have to

But yes, I absolutely do not favor democracy. Which shouldn't imply that I favor totalitarianism, either. What I'm in favor of is a system much like the US originally set up in 1783, with a highly restrictive (of government) Constitution, darkies in the fields, women in the kitchen, a bicameral legislature (a people's house and a house for the States), and a Supreme Court, although I would have written Marbury v. Madison into the original Constitution.

FTFY

I suppose I'd support an amendment, though a lot would depend on the precise wording of it.

[David Floyd]

darkies in the fields, women in the kitchen,

The Constitution is silent on women as originally written.

As for blacks, I've recently read some interesting viewpoints that the "60% rule" was actually intended to REDUCE the representation of Southern slaveholders. IE, if blacks were 100% represented according to population, it's not as if they would have been electing representatives to Congress - it just would have meant more slave holding South Carolinans and Georgians to counteract the Northern (ie, non-slave holding) vote.

Other than that, the Constitution was silent on blacks.

I will grant you that I would support having something akin to the 14th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

[Elok]

As for blacks, I've recently read some interesting viewpoints that the "60% rule" was actually intended to REDUCE the representation of Southern slaveholders. IE, if blacks were 100% represented according to population, it's not as if they would have been electing representatives to Congress - it just would have meant more slave holding South Carolinans and Georgians to counteract the Northern (ie, non-slave holding) vote.

Well, yeah. The 3/5ths was a compromise to keep the southern states from walking out. At least, that's what my HS history class said. I'm too bloody lazy to read the constitution to argue with you, so we'll say you're right until Imran or somebody weighs in; that was a "ha-ha DF hates women and minorities" throwaway gag. I'd have made it an iPod barb if I could figure out how.

[HalfLotus]

so, John McCain, why don't you get one introduced?

Probably because, despite their feigned indignation at the SCOTU ruling, Congress critters like receiving boatloads of money from campaign donors.

I have a hard time getting excited about the ruling either way, it's not like congress isn't bought and paid for by special interests as we speak.

[Berzerker]

the north didn't want slaves to count toward representation, the south did (of course). So they compromised and slaves would count as 3/5ths of a free person. Obviously free blacks were counted like other non-slaves.

[flash9286]

Given that we don't have a democracy, and were never intended to have one, I'm gonna have to

But yes, I absolutely do not favor democracy. Which shouldn't imply that I favor totalitarianism, either. What I'm in favor of is a system much like the US originally set up in 1783, with a highly restrictive (of government) Constitution, bicameral legislature (a people's house and a house for the States), and a Supreme Court, although I would have written Marbury v. Madison into the original Constitution.



When 80%+ of people who identify with BOTH MAJOR PARTIES oppose the SCOTUS decision, I doubt it would take all that long.

I don't know what your first sentence refers to, either you are making a semantic argument that democracy cannot refer to representative democracies/constitutional democracies, or you are referring to the limited % of the people that had the right to vote at the founding, or something else I don't see.

I think you are underestimating the difficulty of getting an amendment ratified.

hey Flash, can you explain more about Marbury and the court's role? I was under the impression Marbury said the court effectively has the power to define the Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison held, among other thing, that the judiciary has the power to declare laws unconstitutional. This is separate from the jurisdiction of the court.

Jurisdiction stripping is a murky area of constitutional law. Since there is almost no case law on the subject. And funny thing is that the Supreme Court would probably review any law stripping some of its jurisdiction, unless it was entirely stripped of constitutional and federal question jurisdiction (if that is the case I have no clue what would happen)

[MrFun]

sigh - libertarian nutjobs . . .

[Imran Siddiqui]

I suppose nothing in theory, but if it comes up again before the same Court, there's a better than even money risk it would be struck down.

Not really. If you take the Court's suggestions into account and craft a law that deals with that, you can steer clear of getting it struck down. It's part of the cat and mouse game that the legislatures and courts play in the regular course of jurisprudence.

[Kidlicious]

yup, how dare the Constitution get in our way

Amen. It's our Constitution anyway.... Isn't it?

[Kidlicious]

I suppose nothing in theory, but if it comes up again before the same Court, there's a better than even money risk it would be struck down.

I'd take that bet.

[Arrian]

Probably because, despite their feigned indignation at the SCOTU ruling, Congress critters like receiving boatloads of money from campaign donors.

I have a hard time getting excited about the ruling either way, it's not like congress isn't bought and paid for by special interests as we speak.

Oh ****...

[Solomwi]

yup, how dare the Constitution get in our way

hey Flash, can you explain more about Marbury and the court's role? I was under the impression Marbury said the court effectively has the power to define the Constitution.

To expand on what Flash said a bit, Marbury says that when a statute is incompatible with the Constitution, the court has to follow the Constitution. Of course, that means the court necessarily has to determine what the Constitution says/means to decide whether the law in question is incompatible. The specific statute in Marbury was the Judiciary Act of 1789, which, among other things, expanded the court's original jurisdiction beyond that listed in Article III, by giving it original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus. The court basically said that it couldn't help Marbury because it didn't have original jurisdiction over his petition for a writ of mandamus. It didn't have that jurisdiction because it couldn't enforce that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 without opposing the Constitution.

It's a thing of beauty, really, the way Marshall established what has been overwhelmingly the most important block of the court's power by pleading the court's powerlessness. "We don't have the power to hear Mr. Marbury's petition, even if we have to nullify an act of Congress to keep from doing so. Really, our hands are tied."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Added to that the political acumen of Marshall, who denied the Federalist appointee, Marbury, his post, which the Jefferson administration would be very happy about, even though the administration was pissed at this assertion of judicial review (though they'd rather prevent Adams' Midnight Appointees from being seated... Jefferson's administration would try to take its revenge out later by attempting to impeach Supreme Court justices, but Aaron Burr, who was at odds with the rest of the administration by that point, saved the day).