Hypothetical 2017 Constitutional Convention

[jvikings1 40]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

You are too easily pleased with a broken system, @Reagan04. I believe in his day, in fact, Lord North (British PM for George III from the mid-1760's to 1780) had a very similar attitude to yours about change and reform when Benjamin Franklin personally delivered him the first set of grievances and recommendations from the First Continental Congress, before independence was declared, when many viewed a peaceful, amicable resolution to the issues as still possible.

Last time I checked, the system wasn't broken.  The US political system is stable and continuing to operate in a way that it was designed to.

[vcczar 1,227]

Here are some proposals for article 3:

1. Term limits of 20 years for Supreme Court Justices, or until they reach the age of 75, whichever comes first. 

2. The Chief Justice will also preside over impeachment trials involving the VP. This prevents the possibility of the VP, as president of the Senate, presiding over his own impeachment trial. 

3. A vacancy on the court, must be filled as soon as practical, by the incumbent president, and then must be heard and voted on for confirmation by the Senate within 90s days of nomination. [This is to prevent the confusion that caused the Merrick Garland situation]

4. A supreme court justice must have reached a minimum age of 50. 

 

 

[Patine 514]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Here are some proposals for article 3:

1. Term limits of 20 years for Supreme Court Justices, or until they reach the age of 75, whichever comes first. 

2. The Chief Justice will also preside over impeachment trials involving the VP. This prevents the possibility of the VP, as president of the Senate, presiding over his own impeachment trial. 

3. A vacancy on the court, must be filled as soon as practical, by the incumbent president, and then must be heard and voted on for confirmation by the Senate within 90s days of nomination. [This is to prevent the confusion that caused the Merrick Garland situation]

4. A supreme court justice must have reached a minimum age of 50. 

 

 

Although, ideally, I would like to propose some mechanism to veer SC justices to being chosen much more by competence than partisan ideology, I'm tapped completely as to how that would be realistically arranged... :S

[pilight 237]

10 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Last time I checked, the system wasn't broken.  The US political system is stable and continuing to operate in a way that it was designed to.

It's not broken, but there are some things that can be improved.  Just needs a few minor tweaks.

[vcczar 1,227]

11 hours ago, Patine said:

Although, ideally, I would like to propose some mechanism to veer SC justices to being chosen much more by competence than partisan ideology, I'm tapped completely as to how that would be realistically arranged... :S

The closest thing you could to is have experience requirements. Both years and experience levels. Perhaps only District judges can be elevated to SC justice, or something. 

[servo75 31]

On 4/7/2017 at 10:43 AM, vcczar said:

@ThePotatoWalrus @servo75 @pilight @Reagan04 @vcczar @Patine @jvikings1 @Bruce Fischer @MarcoCoolio @Sunnymentoaddict @CalebsParadox @LokiLoki22 @SeanFKennedy @chunkbuster11 @jnewt @SirLagsalott @Sanser2016 @michaelsdiamonds @Falcon @TruthOverlord @Take Me to La Riva

We will now begin proposals for article 3 of the constitution, regarding the judicial branch

1. One of the following two options (in order of preference):

a. Supreme Court Justices shall serve for a single, non-renewable term of ten years.  If a justice dies or is impeached prior to the end of their term, the President must appoint a replacement in the same method as currently.
b. Initial appointment is for a fixed term of five years.  After this term expires, a justice may be re-nominated for a lifetime term.  If teachers can only earn tenure after 3 years, why not for an important position such as SCOTUS justice?

2. Any decision by the Supreme Court may be nullified by 3/5 vote of either the Senate and House, or 3/5 of the states*.  This shall not be subject to Presidential veto, and must take place within two years of the court's decision.

3. All decisions must receive Constitutional justification, and can be violated if in conflict with the Constitution.

* e.g. either via the legislature or voter referendum

[jnewt 37]

I have no proposals for article 3

[vcczar 1,227]

Here are the proposals as they now stand. Before we vote on them, we need to see if we can improve them:

 

1. Fix the number of Supreme Court justices to 9, allowing for no reduction or increase in this number. 

 

2a. Term limits of 20 years for Supreme Court Justices, or until they reach the age of 75, whichever comes first. 

 

3. The Chief Justice will also preside over impeachment trials involving the VP. This prevents the possibility of the VP, as president of the Senate, presiding over his own impeachment trial. 

 

4. A vacancy on the court, must be filled as soon as practical, by the incumbent president, and then must be heard and voted on for confirmation by the Senate within 90s days of nomination. [This is to prevent the confusion that caused the Merrick Garland situation]

 

5. A supreme court justice must have reached a minimum age of 50. 

 

6. Only federal-level judges can be elevated to SC justice

 

7. Any decision by the Supreme Court may be nullified by 3/5 vote of either the Senate and House, or 3/5 of the states, through state legislature or state referendum.  This shall not be subject to Presidential veto, and must take place within two years of the court's decision.

 

8. All decisions must receive Constitutional justification, and can be violated if in conflict with the Constitution.

 

The following proposals need to be merged with 2a, since they are similar. Thus, before we vote, they need to be compromised: 

 

2b. Supreme Court Justices shall serve for a single, non-renewable term of ten years.  If a justice dies or is impeached prior to the end of their term, the President must appoint a replacement in the same method as currently.

 

2c. Initial appointment is for a fixed term of five years.  After this term expires, a justice may be re-nominated for a lifetime term.  If teachers can only earn tenure after 3 years, why not for an important position such as SCOTUS justice?

 

[Patine 514]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Here are the proposals as they now stand. Before we vote on them, we need to see if we can improve them:

 

1. Fix the number of Supreme Court justices to 9, allowing for no reduction or increase in this number. 

 

2a. Term limits of 20 years for Supreme Court Justices, or until they reach the age of 75, whichever comes first. 

 

3. The Chief Justice will also preside over impeachment trials involving the VP. This prevents the possibility of the VP, as president of the Senate, presiding over his own impeachment trial. 

 

4. A vacancy on the court, must be filled as soon as practical, by the incumbent president, and then must be heard and voted on for confirmation by the Senate within 90s days of nomination. [This is to prevent the confusion that caused the Merrick Garland situation]

 

5. A supreme court justice must have reached a minimum age of 50. 

 

6. Only federal-level judges can be elevated to SC justice

 

7. Any decision by the Supreme Court may be nullified by 3/5 vote of either the Senate and House, or 3/5 of the states, through state legislature or state referendum.  This shall not be subject to Presidential veto, and must take place within two years of the court's decision.

 

8. All decisions must receive Constitutional justification, and can be violated if in conflict with the Constitution.

 

The following proposals need to be merged with 2a, since they are similar. Thus, before we vote, they need to be compromised: 

 

2b. Supreme Court Justices shall serve for a single, non-renewable term of ten years.  If a justice dies or is impeached prior to the end of their term, the President must appoint a replacement in the same method as currently.

 

2c. Initial appointment is for a fixed term of five years.  After this term expires, a justice may be re-nominated for a lifetime term.  If teachers can only earn tenure after 3 years, why not for an important position such as SCOTUS justice?

 

Number 8 needs clarification. If the role, Constitutionally, is to "interpret the US Constitution," who is authorized or empowered to decide if their rulings are in violation of the Constitution? As we've seen today, many different people have different viewpoints of just what the Constitution means on certain issues. Who will be this "judicial watchdog" for rulings in violation of the Constitution, with their wisdom (and opinion) on the issue being binding?

[Bruce Fischer 1]

15 minutes ago, Patine said:

Number 8 needs clarification. If the role, Constitutionally, is to "interpret the US Constitution," who is authorized or empowered to decide if their rulings are in violation of the Constitution? As we've seen today, many different people have different viewpoints of just what the Constitution means on certain issues. Who will be this "judicial watchdog" for rulings in violation of the Constitution, with their wisdom (and opinion) on the issue being binding?

I was, like you, under the impression (one given to me by Marbury v. Madison, decided roughly 214 years ago) that the Supreme Court's job was to interpret what is and isn't Constitutional, which inherently necessitates interpreting the Constitution itself... This change would effectively eliminate judicial activism of literally any kind, which is fine if you're super conservative and/or a strict constructionist, but a massive number of people (including myself) would not agree that judicial activism is a bad thing. (I'm a living document kid of guy)

[servo75 31]

5 hours ago, Patine said:

Number 8 needs clarification. If the role, Constitutionally, is to "interpret the US Constitution," who is authorized or empowered to decide if their rulings are in violation of the Constitution? As we've seen today, many different people have different viewpoints of just what the Constitution means on certain issues. Who will be this "judicial watchdog" for rulings in violation of the Constitution, with their wisdom (and opinion) on the issue being binding?

I made that suggestion #8, and I withdraw it.  My purpose was to ensure that judges do not rule from the bench.  Justices can interpret the Constitution but judicial activism is dangerous and implies that a judge can substitute his/her personal opinion for the law.  We've seen that lately in that a few rogue Federal judges can single-handedly overturn a completely Constitutional executive order for the travel ban.  You have unelected lifetime-appointed judges making up laws from the bench.  The Supreme Court is the court of last resort and if a judge makes an unconstitutional decision then there's no further recourse.

That being said, I think maybe the 3/5 override can at least make that less of a danger.

[servo75 31]

7 hours ago, vcczar said:

Here are the proposals as they now stand. Before we vote on them, we need to see if we can improve them:

The following proposals need to be merged with 2a, since they are similar. Thus, before we vote, they need to be compromised: 

2a. Term limits of 20 years for Supreme Court Justices, or until they reach the age of 75, whichever comes first. 

 

Okay but I don't agree with the age limit of  75.

[vcczar 1,227]

Proposal #8 is withdrawn. 

Proposal #2 is merged to a term limit of 20 years. The age limit of 75 has been removed. 

If no other alterations to these proposals are requested, then I will put them up for a vote tomorrow. 

[Guest]

I propose a revision to proposal #4, exempting this requirement if the nominee is currently under investigation or is pending an investigation by a federal agency, if that agency announces it has reasonable cause to investigate this individual.

[Patine 514]

1 minute ago, SirLagsalott said:

I propose a revision to proposal #4, exempting this requirement if the nominee is currently under investigation or is pending an investigation by a federal agency, if that agency announces it has reasonable cause to investigate this individual.

But "exempting someone under investigation for a crime or malfeasance" is a classic clause in many corrupt Third World nations' Constitutions (usually in regard to those running for executive and legislative offices, mind, and typically to strategically disqualify political opponents who may pose a threat to a powerful incumbent in a coming election, even despite typical "rigging").

[servo75 31]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

But "exempting someone under investigation for a crime or malfeasance" is a classic clause in many corrupt Third World nations' Constitutions (usually in regard to those running for executive and legislative offices, mind, and typically to strategically disqualify political opponents who may pose a threat to a powerful incumbent in a coming election, even despite typical "rigging").

I think personally #4 is too specific.  The Constitution is designed to be open to interpretation.  The more you put in that "The President must do X and Y and Z in 90 days unless..." the less it's a Constitution and the more it becomes a "user manual" trying to solve every conceivable issue.

[Sunnymentoaddict 39]

I am against term limits on the court, since itll place this weird indirect elect on the SCOTUS every 20 years- think of the heightened influence special interest groups will play to insure the court will their way. I will vote no solely on that provision.

 

[vcczar 1,227]

I'm busy today, so I'll probably wait to put this up for a vote until tomorrow. That gives an extra day to amend proposals. 

[vcczar 1,227]

ght @Reagan04 @vcczar @Patine @jvikings1 @Bruce Fischer @MarcoCoolio @Sunnymentoaddict @CalebsParadox @LokiLoki22 @SeanFKennedy @chunkbuster11 @jnewt @SirLagsalott @Sanser2016 @michaelsdiamonds @Falcon @TruthO

We are now beginning proposals for Article 4, regarding the rights and relationship of the states between themselves and between the federal government. 

[pilight 237]

I have no changes to Article IV

[Reagan04 658]

Once again, I seek to preserve this marvel of populism and brilliant defender of the people.

[Patine 514]

39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

ght @Reagan04 @vcczar @Patine @jvikings1 @Bruce Fischer @MarcoCoolio @Sunnymentoaddict @CalebsParadox @LokiLoki22 @SeanFKennedy @chunkbuster11 @jnewt @SirLagsalott @Sanser2016 @michaelsdiamonds @Falcon @TruthO

We are now beginning proposals for Article 4, regarding the rights and relationship of the states between themselves and between the federal government. 

I believe the right of determining voter suffrage rights should be transferred from the State to the Federal level. There is no justifiable reason different states should have different requirements for who gets the vote, and it is well-known this power being absolutely at the State level has been abused horribly at several instances in US history. Along with that, Federal House constituencies should be drawn by the Federal government, with States retaining the power to draw constituencies for their State Legislatures.

Also, more overtly recognized ability for Federal-State joint projects and Federal assistance to States who lack capabilities in their own State to fulfill infrastructure, security, policing and other need satisfactorily to their residents, as well as when State abilities are overwhelmed (like huge disasters, massive-scale terrorist attacks, usages of a WMD, or an armed rebellion that is so initially successful that the State Government is not in a functional position to formally 'ask' for intervention).

[jnewt 37]

I propose to repeal Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, aka the Fugitive Slave Clause.

[Patine 514]

56 minutes ago, jnewt said:

I propose to repeal Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, aka the Fugitive Slave Clause.

Is that still in the official text?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Is that still in the official text?

Yes. Obviously it's no longer in use, as it is nullified by the 13th Amendment, but it is still technically there (just with an invisible strike-through).