Celebrating the 40th anniversary of Return of the Jedi

Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
The Avenger

Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021
Subj: Re: The Supreme Court and Courts in general within the US...
Posted: Mon May 09, 2022 at 09:01:05 pm EDT (Viewed 205 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The Supreme Court and Courts in general within the US...
Posted: Sat May 07, 2022 at 01:40:49 pm EDT (Viewed 244 times)


      I was hesitant to post this with all of the music threads providing a nice break from what the boards can be but with the upcoming SCOTUS decision (presuming the leaks are correct) and general track record of the court I had been thinking.


        Courts within the U.S. have enormous power. When the country was founded it was not really even specified within the Constitution what sort of power they had, as Judicial Review came later. And it has a mixed history at best, like any government institution I guess. Mostly it has reinforced the status quo or helped keep those rich and powerful rich and powerful. There have been breaks from that but they are the exception and not the norm.


          Which leads to my pondering. I heard this somewhere along the line and it is for sure not a new thought.


            Why not change the process of passing Constitutional Amendments?


    I don't think we'd like living in a world where the Constitution was easily amended. It's not a perfect document, but measured by longevity, it's humanity's most successful constitution, and not by accident. The Framers weren't perfect, but they sincerely tried to establish something good on the earth, and much good has come out of their effort. Amending it sounds great until the amendment in question turns out to be something we dread.

I am not sure I would argue good as such as trying to develop what they saw as the best form of government that was functional as opposed to the Articles of Confederacy that was an utter failure in nearly every respect to build a country. If that is good than sure, but otherwise they just wanted something that worked. They left it vague and short on purpose.

There are also quite a number of things in it that are totally unclear, even with the Bill of Rights and the core document. I mean the Second Amendment alone is a headache to try and figure out what they meant exactly and depending on what side of the fence you are on with the issue you can fall multiple ways.

Anyway, I think it is too difficult to adjust. They made the document with the idea of adding Amendments do adjust the document for the times but the last Amendment was ratified in 1992. Seems like there are numerous issues that need to be clarified because the Courts have not been consistent.

To me, I would rather have them change more often than Courts potentially use a moving target to redefine issues based on ideology and who appointed them.

    We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I am not sure I follow your definition of good.

The system is in place to modify the document and it should be based on the times it is in as opposed to having to read between the lines and leave large swaths unknown and at best to a patchwork system that ends up not working very well.

The system is imperfect, but any system with humans involved will be so but should be modified in order to try and improve the lives of the people within the country itself as opposed to being used as a reason at times to apparently hamper it or to cut off conversations.

But that is just my two cents.

Even the Founders had very different views of the document after they wrote it. With Hamilton and Jefferson being the poster boys for that.

Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software