Shouldn't the US Constitution be amended to allow Supreme Court Justices only a 12 year term instead of life?
412797
That actually sounds reasonsable.
495340
techinically, they dont play a part in politics.  their life terms were designed so that they did not have to be bothered with public opinion and the day to day changes in politics.  their only goal is to interpret what the constitution says.  supreme court cases dont change nearly as often as laws do, mainly for the fact that the courts value precident and broad interpretations than what is right or good for the country.
932286
What in the world are you talking about?????? The only changes allowed to the Constitution are through amendemnts. Look them up!
1101927
Not as long as there is a constitution to serve us as a religion.
404079
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.\n\nThe first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).\n\nThe second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.\n\nRegardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.\n\nIt is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):
1088675
Not according to the constitution.
1128494
It's an issue that has not been dealt with yet and could be contentious if it ever does. The problem is, the 22nd amendment, which limits presidents to two terms does not specifically say that the VP cannot have been president for 2 terms, but at the same time, the twelfth amendment states, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Whether or not this applies to the interpretation of the 22nd amendment is not at all agreed upon and would involve a Supreme Court dispute if it ever arose.
454103
Common misunderstanding, but laudable that you are asking, because it is theonly way we can become self-governed again. \n\nThe U.S. Constitution only grants one right. The fist 10 Amendments, added twelve years later, are called "The Bill of Rights," and are probably what you're thinking of.\n\nA "right" is something granted by law, something you can take to court and win. A privilege, can be taken away at any time at the whim of those few in power.\n\nLike someone in the military has almost no rights. But they have lots of privileges. An underage child has no rights, but has privileges. \n\nThe one test to find out if you have a right, e.g., the case of a child, is to find out if this person or entity can sue or be sued. If not, then there are no rights. \n\nRead the Constitution on my web site listed below, then read the explanation of the Amendments. You'll find that the one main reason for the Constitution was to set up a Federal Gov't, and at the same time, limit their power. Their greatest fear was that the Fed would become more powerful than a State, and rule the States from afar and dictate their laws, and invade our states at will. But of course, that has happened anyway hasn't it, because nobody is policing the police (the Fed) or enforcing the Constitution.\n\nThey tried to weaken the Fed by breaking them up into 3 branches; Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. If those three ever came together, we would have a totalitarian dictatorship, similar to a King ruling us dictating our every move. For examply, only Congress can pass new law, which represents each State. But the President (Executive) decrees new laws every day by executive order. The courts (Judicial Branch) interpret and change laws every day. So the inevitible has happened; all three branches are acting as one, and nobody seems to care.
486670
Article 7 relates to the ratification process for the US Constitution. While redundant now as it has been ratified, it is part of the historical record. It would also be more trouble than it is worth engaging in a constitutional amendment process to remove it.
968141
"Article Two (US Constitution) also defines a Presidential term at FOUR YEARS; subsequently, the Twelfth Amendment (1804) revised the procedure for electing the President and the Twenty-second Amendment (1951) established Presidential term limits."\n\n"Senators serve for SIX-YEAR terms that are staggered so elections are held for approximately one-third of the seats (a "class") every second year. "  (Although a Senator serves for 6 years, every 2 years 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for election/reelection.)\n\n"Each Representative serves for a TWO-YEAR term and may be re-elected an unlimited number of times."
180788
Absolutely. We already have two of the three branches elected (more or less) by the public, they provide an adequate check against the judiciary.\n\nThe problem with making the courts public is that the public is slow to change. Many important decisions would have been delayed by years, if not decades, if the courts had been elected.\n\nExamples : Roe v Wade (allowing abortion), Brown v. Board of education (end of segregation in schools), Lawrence v. Texas (decriminalizing sodomy).\n\nThe legislative and executive branches are elected by the public, and tend to represent the majority. Since the judiciary is often not, they tend to be more receptive to the needs of the minorities (non-Christians, women, children, African-Americans, gays, etc).\n\nRegarding Kelo : The SCOTUS merely ruled that local government can take private property for public use (with compensation, as mentioned in the Fifth Amendment). But the people still have the decision to vote for public officials who would choose not to do this.
739930
It depends on the state. Some states have term limits. Others don't.
839937
I think that if you change the constitution in any way to suit the terrorist threat then the terrorist have won. While maybe not a threat from this president it could be in the future and I know I would not like the gestapo knocking down my door and taking me away and locking me up without due process. This is an awful law and people who say it is all right to change the constitution are traitors to the American way of life. Our freedoms are precious and should not be written away without a fight. I hope that even with the Supreme court being a right wing majority that they will throw this law out as being what it is and that is unconstitutional.
1154154
It is impossible for this to occur as an amendment to the Constitution after FDR's reign declared no one could hold the Chief Executive Office for more than two terms (consecutively or otherwise).  Thus, it would be impossible for someone to assume the number 2 position having already held the number 1 for two terms.
703668
While a Constitution seems to be necessary, it is not sufficient by itself.  You need institutions that work too.
962593
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. The Circuit Judges Act of 1869 again set the number of judges at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since.\n\nPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in his proposed Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. His plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. This plan, referred to often as the Court Packing Plan, failed in Congress. The Court, however, moved from its opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal programs, rendering the President's effort moot (see the switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint eight Justices to the Supreme Court and promote one Associate Justice to Chief Justice; upon his death in 1945, all but one of the Court's members were his appointees.
1009188
While not a flag burner or waver I feel that to many have died to change the law and not allow it. Repuglicans stepping on the constitution is another matter, I think burning them ought to be the law.