COS Proposes Bizarre Solution to rein in the U.S. Supreme Court
Constitutional Convention advocates recommend a fundamental transformation of the U.S. Supreme Court by modeling it after the European International Court on Human Rights (ECHR).
Convention of the States National Director, Michael Farris recommends, “If the Supreme Court loves their national law, we’ll fix them this way.” Farris continues that we turn the Court into a 50-judge panel serving 8-year terms. This models the ECHR that appoints 46 judges; one for each member nations. Farris says that the Supreme Court reviews things on paper, because the “important stuff is done on paper anyway.” He continues, “If you don’t like their decision, you don’t like who they are, you get a new one.”
The ECHR can change national law through influencing change through “soft law”. According to University of Law, if national law conflicts with international law, the ECHR provides the ability for lawyers to pressure the national legislators to change their laws, aligning them with international law.
While we may not all agree with all the decisions of our highest Court, to fundamentally transform our U.S. Supreme Court into a system incapable of holding a sustained view and more difficult to overcome political pressure is certainly no improvement.
In other words, the rulings placed on the U.S. Supreme Court will change our laws to reflect international law…not constrain politicians and lawyers to the Constitution. The Supreme Court will become a token court, even more subjective to political pressures. Under the ECHR model, individuals, corporations, local, state and federal government brought before the court may in fact be even less constitutional.
Constructing a Supreme Court as such creates a roving system, making the U.S. Supreme Court extremely political. The courts authority will be wrapped in international bureaucracy and political framework and departs even farther from protecting individual rights and interpretation of the Constitution. This dilutes the balance of power, politicizes the U.S. Supreme Court and injects an international bureaucracy into our court system.
Exactly what the founders attempted to avoid.
Here are two questions that should be asked.
These Constitutional Convention people get crazier by the day. It took the progressive politicians a little over a hundred years to screw up the government to the point that it does not follow our Constitution. Wouldn’t it be simpler to elect only people that will follow the Constitution, rather than change the Constitution and expect the politicians to follow that one. A Constitutional Convention will only play into the hands of the progressives and end up as an oligarchy.
I agree entirely but these are people who wear the conservative banner, they are just as dangerous.
Their intentions are not to chain the politicians, it’s to chain the people.
Thanks for your comment,
You are right about the quasi-conservatives, they are just as dangerous as the liberal/progressives. Government didn’t grow this big overnight, it’s been in the making for over a hundred years. Their love for a living Constitution has brought us to where we are today. As for the Supreme Court, it will not change until we start putting people on it based on their knowledge of the Constitution and the laws of the land instead of their political flavor.
Todays politics nurtures corruption and wherever you find large sums of money you will find corrupt politicians.
If one truly feels that a ‘European Style’ court is best…There are a number of those countries that would roll out a welcome mat…..GO!! This old Constitution has served the United States well and will continue to do so IF those holding Federal Offices actually ‘know’ it. That includes those in all three branches. To open a CC would make Pandora’s Box look like cracker jacks. Some areas may need to have more specificity and that can be done though Congress.
I’m not liberal, nor conservative. I’m probably not even a true moderate….I’m an American. Rigidity of either does not include all of ‘we the people’ and cannot ever be effective. Those that ‘insist on putting a firm line around belief will suffer from limited vision and do pose a danger to the rest of us.