Constitution too hard to change

2012-10-07

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is promoting his new book like there is no tomorrow. Among the flurry of similarly worded presentations, the Associated Press picked up a point he made in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute:

Scalia said the Constitution makes changing it too hard by requiring 38 states to ratify an amendment for it to take effect.

“It is very difficult to adopt a constitutional amendment,” Scalia said. He once calculated that less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, residing in the 13 least populous states, could stop an amendment, he said.

Antonin ScaliaAntonin Scalia | AP Photo, Jessica Hill

I agree. It echoes my observation that the German constitution is much easier to change, making it a living constitution and certainly easing the interpretative burden on the highest court.

The elected executive and legislative branches have a legitimate interest to update constitutional law according to the people’s evolving moral standards. Right now, that interest is funneled into an unproductive fight over judicial nominations, trying to exert indirect influence over the Supreme Court.

It would lead to a much more healthy discourse, and probably to better and more bipartisan judicial nominations, if there was a workable approach (and thus an obligation) for the legislature to discuss and decide these issues directly.

Whatever people think of Scalia’s political views (uh, philosophies), the consistency of his views is always refreshing.

Advertisements

Freedom of speech, but how free exactly?

2012-09-23

Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights, adopted by the first Congress of the United States in 1789 | National Archives

The last couple of weeks offered ample opportunity for being disgusted. Disgusted with a world that allows agitators at the fringes to dominate the agenda and relish in senseless violence. Disgusted with politicians who try to score cheap political points over the death of their compatriots. And disgusted with leaders willing to sacrifice free speech over the mere threat of violence. | More →

The politics of drama

High Noon | Universal Pictures

“A moment of great drama” – that’s how Jon Stewart lampooned CNN’s botched reporting of the health care ruling. And thinking about it, drama seems to be a lifeline of American politics. | More →

Oh the humanity: A political Supreme Court

2012-07-05  

The Authority of Law

The Authority of Law by James Earle Fraser, guarding the west side of the United States Supreme Court building | Matt H. Wade

Last week’s health care ruling by the United States Supreme Court had many commentators arguing whether the decision was a proper discharge of judicial authority, or if it had been tainted by political considerations.

This question, laced with speculation of court intrigue and outside pressure, seems rooted in an eternal concern Americans have with their Supreme Court. | More →