Amending the US Constitution

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Science Fan
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Amending the US Constitution

Post by Science Fan » Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:44 pm

It's amended in reality every single time the US Supreme Court issues an opinion that involves the Constitution. People seldom think of Supreme Court decisions as amendments to the Constitution, but what else would they be? The Constitution consists of the actual document we call the Constitution, in addition to the numerous cases that interpret what the Constitution supposedly means and how it should be applied to a specific situation. So, from the standpoint that Justices keep adding to the Constitution, it is certainly flexible, but keep in mind that this also leads to plainly unconstitutional outcomes. For example, the US Supreme Court came up with the political doctrine, which means that if the US Supreme Court considers a Constitutional issue as involving too much heated politics, it will not hear the case and render a decision on it. Thus, the Supreme Court refused to hear cases regarding the Constitutionality of the Vietnam conflict, since Congress never actually declared war. But, this literally means the US Supreme Court has abandoned its Constitutional role of interpreting the Constitution to resolve an issue when things get heated --- which is exactly when we need the Supreme Court the most.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5186
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Amending the US Constitution

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:29 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:44 pm
It's amended in reality every single time the US Supreme Court issues an opinion that involves the Constitution. People seldom think of Supreme Court decisions as amendments to the Constitution, but what else would they be? The Constitution consists of the actual document we call the Constitution, in addition to the numerous cases that interpret what the Constitution supposedly means and how it should be applied to a specific situation. So, from the standpoint that Justices keep adding to the Constitution, it is certainly flexible, but keep in mind that this also leads to plainly unconstitutional outcomes. For example, the US Supreme Court came up with the political doctrine, which means that if the US Supreme Court considers a Constitutional issue as involving too much heated politics, it will not hear the case and render a decision on it. Thus, the Supreme Court refused to hear cases regarding the Constitutionality of the Vietnam conflict, since Congress never actually declared war. But, this literally means the US Supreme Court has abandoned its Constitutional role of interpreting the Constitution to resolve an issue when things get heated --- which is exactly when we need the Supreme Court the most.
Until the Court's opinion is formally made part of the Constitution through amendment, it remains as opinion (which can easily change depending on the makeup of the court or if members change their minds). As far as the Court ducking out on issues, usually the issue is with them being very intrusive.

Are you saying the Court should be more active?

PhilX 🇺🇸

Science Fan
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Amending the US Constitution

Post by Science Fan » Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:34 pm

The cases are amendments for all practical purposes. Any lower court trying to figure out what the Constitution means has to defer to those opinions and cannot deviate from them. They do, however, and often intentionally, but that is an abuse of their power.

What I am saying is that the Supreme Court should follow the Constitution and fulfill their role under the Constitution that involves the separation of powers. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution. If there is a conflict between the president, Congress and the Supreme Court on what the Constitution means, we are supposed to defer to the Court's interpretation over the other branches of government. When the Court abandons this role, it is literally violating the Constitution. If you think that violation is a good thing, then aren't you supporting an activist Court that is in violation of the Constitution?

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and those who interpret the laws are governed by those laws as much as anyone else is. The fact the Supreme Court Justices have on numerous occasions stated otherwise just shows how intellectually dishonest they are. I have no respect at all for our Supreme Court that openly is committed to undermining the separation of powers doctrine.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5186
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Amending the US Constitution

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:54 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:34 pm
The cases are amendments for all practical purposes. Any lower court trying to figure out what the Constitution means has to defer to those opinions and cannot deviate from them. They do, however, and often intentionally, but that is an abuse of their power.

What I am saying is that the Supreme Court should follow the Constitution and fulfill their role under the Constitution that involves the separation of powers. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution. If there is a conflict between the president, Congress and the Supreme Court on what the Constitution means, we are supposed to defer to the Court's interpretation over the other branches of government. When the Court abandons this role, it is literally violating the Constitution. If you think that violation is a good thing, then aren't you supporting an activist Court that is in violation of the Constitution?

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and those who interpret the laws are governed by those laws as much as anyone else is. The fact the Supreme Court Justices have on numerous occasions stated otherwise just shows how intellectually dishonest they are. I have no respect at all for our Supreme Court that openly is committed to undermining the separation of powers doctrine.
What you're looking for may not be practical as there are so many issues that the Court may not be able to keep up with (IOW how do they select their cases?) (Regarding the Vietnam War, the Court has shown reluctance to go against the other branches so it weighs out the positives and negatives of taking any action).

PhilX 🇺🇸

Science Fan
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Amending the US Constitution

Post by Science Fan » Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:07 pm

The Supreme Court is not given the authority under the Constitution to avoid issuing a ruling based on a made-up political issue doctrine. But, you are right, that because the Supreme Court cannot possibly hear every dispute, it has to limit the cases it does hear and decide. It's just that in engaging in that analysis, it is still bound by the Constitution.

The reality is that we live in a corrupt world, and I doubt it's going to be fixed any time soon.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests