Supreme Court
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude><div style="font-size:175%;font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;"></noinclude> | <noinclude><div style="font-size:175%;font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;"></noinclude> | ||
| − | The original Constitution was written in very general language because the founders were unsure how their experiment in democracy would unfold. They wanted the Constitution to work under whatever unknown conditions that could arise. Unfortunately, courts have abused the generality of the language to take the law in directions well beyond it's original scope | + | The original Constitution was written in very general language because the founders were unsure how their experiment in democracy would unfold. They wanted the Constitution to work under whatever unknown conditions that could arise. The ambiguity also allowed the drafters to appease representatives at the Constitutional Convention who had opposing views on the substance of the document. Unfortunately, courts have abused the generality of the language to take the law in directions well beyond it's original scope. |
| − | The {{SITENAME}} | + | Now that we've had two and a quarter centuries of experience with the Constitution and our experiment in democracy, we can more confidently use precise language in the text of our highest law. The {{SITENAME}} is written in language that has more precision than the original Constitution. This specificity is needed because of the abuses that have taken place throughout the years while interpreting the text of the Constitution. We've often heard the phrase "Living Document" when referring to the Constitution. The implication is that the interpretation of the Constitution can change over the years to accommodate changes in society. That sounds good in theory, but in practice, it means that our highest law is made by nine guys who are not even elected by the people. That's not democracy. That's not a republic. It's an oligarchy. |
| − | The {{SITENAME}} establishes a jury of citizens within the Supreme Court to | + | The {{SITENAME}} corrects that by writing the law more specifically. |
| + | |||
| + | But what happens as society changes? How can the law adapt? Getting an amendment ratified is a long, difficult process. Won't the specificity of the document lock us in? | ||
| + | |||
| + | The {{SITENAME}} establishes a jury of citizens within the Supreme Court to accommodate interpretations while providing an additional check against usurpation. The Supreme Court Justices still interpret the text (exactly as it is written), but the Jury can veto any Jurists' opinions that infringe our rights or corrupt justice. Also, the Amendment makes it a little easier to amend the Constitution, either by the original methods or directly by the people, so any needed changes can be addressed while preserving our democracy. | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:12, 5 October 2018
The original Constitution was written in very general language because the founders were unsure how their experiment in democracy would unfold. They wanted the Constitution to work under whatever unknown conditions that could arise. The ambiguity also allowed the drafters to appease representatives at the Constitutional Convention who had opposing views on the substance of the document. Unfortunately, courts have abused the generality of the language to take the law in directions well beyond it's original scope.
Now that we've had two and a quarter centuries of experience with the Constitution and our experiment in democracy, we can more confidently use precise language in the text of our highest law. The Uniting Amendment is written in language that has more precision than the original Constitution. This specificity is needed because of the abuses that have taken place throughout the years while interpreting the text of the Constitution. We've often heard the phrase "Living Document" when referring to the Constitution. The implication is that the interpretation of the Constitution can change over the years to accommodate changes in society. That sounds good in theory, but in practice, it means that our highest law is made by nine guys who are not even elected by the people. That's not democracy. That's not a republic. It's an oligarchy.
The Uniting Amendment corrects that by writing the law more specifically.
But what happens as society changes? How can the law adapt? Getting an amendment ratified is a long, difficult process. Won't the specificity of the document lock us in?
The Uniting Amendment establishes a jury of citizens within the Supreme Court to accommodate interpretations while providing an additional check against usurpation. The Supreme Court Justices still interpret the text (exactly as it is written), but the Jury can veto any Jurists' opinions that infringe our rights or corrupt justice. Also, the Amendment makes it a little easier to amend the Constitution, either by the original methods or directly by the people, so any needed changes can be addressed while preserving our democracy.
This article is a stub. You can help Uniting Amendment by expanding it.
