TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

A Constitutional Amendment for "We the People" to vote and overturn this corrupt decision by The US Supreme Court

US election laws have been clear and have set a president for over 100 years with respect to the amount of money, and where the money is from, in regards to campaign contributions. This US Supreme Court did in fact, legislate from the bench, by creating laws and interpretations that did not and had not existed previously.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 6 2012: So you want to have a pure democracy? and due away with the republic of the U.S.? the reason for the SCOTUS is to compare laws with the Constitution? Are you asking this because the POTUS inferred this question?
    • thumb
      Apr 6 2012: I think what he is saying is that, quite often, the judicial system has become politicized. You can't disagree with this. Both the left and the right decry judicial activism and regardless of political stripe I think we have to agree it happens.

      The recent decisions of the Supreme Court have been dubious. One great example is Citizens United but it isn't the only. There is anecdotal evidence, like the "that's not true" and Clarence Thomas' wife and financial disclosure forms. On the other side, there is Justice Kagan not recusing herself in a case where I would argue she is more than a bit biased.

      We do not need a pure democracy. In many cases, our Republic works. However, that is not to say it is perfect. There is no reasonable check on the Supreme Court. There is impeachment, but the most obvious bias and corruption we have ever seen (Clarence Thomas) goes without even a vote in Congress. The Senate approval (advise & consent) power is almost always on partisan lines, with a few crossing over to sustain a cloture vote/majority.

      I'm not saying that Congress should be able to overturn the decisions of the Supreme Court. Obviously that isn't what our Founders intended. I don't trust the people more than I trust the Supreme Court. There has to be some better option, though, than what we have. The Supreme Court is so clearly political it isn't even funny any more.
      • thumb
        Apr 6 2012: Of course it is political so what how can it not be. The current presidents selection of Kagan is beyond dubious and something that would only occur in Chicago Illinois, you know the one where the last governor or two is in prison.

        Yea I actually like their decision regarding mccain feingold as it was one of them dubious laws which was simply circumvented by the super pacs. I may be wrong on this but that is my understanding.

        I did hear about Kagan not recusing herself from the hearing on Obama care because she was appointed by Obama. I do think this is over the line but...

        FDR threatened to pack the SCOTUS if he did not get his way, the effects of which regarding imo abuses of the 10 amendment are so fing unconstitutional it is unbelievable. And created the entitlement problems we have today.

        That was a joke about the democracy, of course not. The thing about SCOTUS is that as 1/3 of the federal government it was intended not to be affected by having to worry about reelection. So I think it is fine just the way it is.

        Our friends from around the world get annoyed by the idea of American exceptionalism but a big part of why that WAS really true was because of the Constitution. What needs to be done is to go back to it and get rid of the abuses of the Supreme Court in the past of the 10th amendment. Like the current case on Obama care which if it is not declared unconstitutional is absolutely irrevocably going to change America forever and no doubt will destroy it. If you think I'm exaggerating think again.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.