undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjawns3y ago0 comments

Oh, it's still amended, but by judicial decisions from as few as five justices, rather than by supermajorities of Congress and the states.

0 comments

mberning3y ago

That's hyperbolic and is really letting the legislature off the hook for their poor performance. Many of the things that people are upset about, say abortion rights, could have easily been addressed over the past few decades via legislation, but the congress was happy to allow it to rest on a shaky legal foundation via judicial ruling. Even now, they do nothing on the issue. You could pass a federal law saying that an abortion is to be legal in the case of incest. Who is going to oppose that? Rather than do that people want to make it easier to amend the constitution. It's ridiculous and dangerous. If the legislature tries and is denied by the courts then maybe we can talk about a constitutional amendment. But they haven't even tried yet.

jawnsOP3y ago

I agree with you that Congress shares part of the blame. But there are currently two paths to effectively amend the Constitution, and one of them is waaay easier, so it's not surprising that it has come to this.

I would like to see the U.S. take a page from Canada, which has what is called a "Notwithstanding Clause" in its own constitution:

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/notwithsta...

The clause essentially says that if the judicial branch declares a law unconstitutional, then the legislative branch, with broad support, can issue a temporary override, which lasts for five years and can be renewed.

If the U.S. were to ratify a similar amendment, then there would be two ways to head off or invalidate SCOTUS decisions on constitutional issues. With the assent of 3/4th of states, an amendment can be ratified outright, either to prevent or respond to a court ruling. Alternatively, with the assent of 2/3rds of Congress, a specific Supreme Court decision can be temporarily overruled.