Erm, why is the United States being run, governed, and operated by the Supreme Court?

[Kulindahr]

I think this discussion between members from different countries may encounter confusion. In the United States, Congress, unlike parliament in the UK or elsewhere, is not the supreme lawmaker. Supreme lawmaking power rests with 75% of states to amend the US Constitution. As one might expect, that's extraordinarily difficult to do, so we have a legislature to take care of every day business. However, that runs into the problem of conflict with the supreme law, i.e. the Constitution. Congress may absolutely not run afoul of it.

Then, without judicial review, the Constitution would be meaningless as the "supreme law of the land." Why? Congress could pass any law, even regarding the structure of government itself, without regard to it and it would have to be obeyed. Note, parliamentary systems operate this way.

The alternative in a constitutional republic would be for the executive branch of government to ignore laws it deems unconstitutional. The difference in a judiciary is that judges are extremely erudite and moral people, who have been confirmed usually by an overwhelming majority of the Senate, and nominally not influenced by politics.

That's something easily forgotten. Of course it's harder to do than it used to be, when the state legislatures chose their respective US Senators, because as a state went, so went the senator.

 

[bankside]

It did play out that way with the 27th Amendment didn't it?

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually, it's never been done in the way I meant it. As you know, states can convene without Congress to make changes to the Constitution. Therefore, states are de jure wholly independent from and more powerful than the federal government if 75% of them so wished. If the feds ever became like King John, the states would be like the barons.

You're talking the process where two-thirds of the states call a convention and anything at that convention which passes by 3/4 of the states amends the Constitution, yes?

I really think that's the only way we're going to get an amendment stripping political rights from all entities but citizens and legal residents. If we can, at the same time we should pass some amendments strengthening privacy rights and banning the death penalty.

 

[Benvolio]

I really think that's the only way we're going to get an amendment stripping political rights from all entities but citizens and legal residents. If we can, at the same time we should pass some amendments strengthening privacy rights and banning the death penalty.

You keep threatening to deprive institutions and corporations of freedom of speech, but you have never told us what you would do about media corporations and universities. So I guess the government will be able to dictate what they say?

 

[Kulindahr]

It did play out that way with the 27th Amendment didn't it?

That one was a mistake.

 

[Rolyo85]

That one was a mistake.

So was the 2nd

 

[JB3]

So was the 2nd

There wouldn't be a United States without the 2nd amendment.

 

[Rolyo85]

And there wouldn't be a United States soon because of it. It is outdated, and clearly worded wrong, if it causes the results it does in present day.

 

[Kulindahr]

And there wouldn't be a United States soon because of it. It is outdated, and clearly worded wrong, if it causes the results it does in present day.

The problem is not the amendment, it's a society insufficiently civilized for it.

 

[Rolyo85]

The problem is not the amendment, it's a society insufficiently civilized for it.

You meant to say "progressed beyond the point where it does more good than harm". Either way, if the society isn't equipped to utilize it, it's harmful.