Legislative override of SCOTUS

I accept.Let's start with the intro. I have a problem with calling the Supreme Court arrogant. They are qualified justices who hold power yes, but proving that the justices are arrogantly using that power is more difficult than you make it seem. Arrogance in order to be unique, must be a defining trait of a person. Not all the SCOTUS Justices are considered in that light.Your quote from Dobson is intriguing. In it, he assumes that SCOTUS does not have opinions that reflect the Constitution. I have two points under this. First the Consitution is a vague document that is interpretable in certain parts, in different ways. So somebody is always going to be mad with an interpretation. But second, they have to write down their thoughts on the constitutionality of every case that comes under their consideration. It is not like they ignore the Constitution. That is the words of someone who's Constitutional interpretation is being trampled on. Also, the Constitution does evolve for your information. According to Scholastic.com "You may have heard the U.S. Constitution called "a living document." Though it may seem like a dry piece of paper to you, it really is designed to live and grow as the nation grows. Even the Founding Fathers knew it might have to change with the times." http://www.scholastic.com... If Scholastic believes it to be a living document, then nearly all educators recognize it as such and you are outnumbered."This is not what the Framers of the Constitution intended." How do you know what they thought?Let's talk Harms.HARM 1 Response: I will break your quote down. The SCOTUS is not reckless. If anything they are very cautious, because they have taken years to make rulings happen before, and do so to this day. Now, when it comes to international law and the Constitution, you do realize that the Constitution itself is a patchwork document of foreign governance ideas? You do realize that the Constitution comes from John Locke, a British person? Obviously Edwin Meese is contradicting himself in this quote, or failing to remember key facts.All three of your cases are examples that do seem to support some level of overreach. However, I want you to provide the percentage of how many SCOTUS cases throughout its history have actually overstepped supposed Constitutional boundaries, and how many have not. Three examples are just not enough substantiation for you plan. Harm 2 Response: So SCOTUS justices do not have more weight in their opinion then Congressmen? Congress members are known for their polarisation, and complete unwillingness to cooperate. As well as their corruption. SCOTUS judges have the edge over them with several years of experience and expertise in law. So clearly, that edge in the matter of legal recourse is better. Also Phyllis Schlafly's quote proves the need for a national referendum system. Not a SCOTUS overhaul.So uh, Thomas's opinion is proof that a) Constitutional interpretations vary, and b) SCOTUS judges do consider the Constitution within rulings.Michael Farris's quote is true, but then again, governments change and respecting the wishes of our founders is not on the top of this country's priority list. If it was, then slavery would still be a thing. As well as legal libelious newspapers, censorship, and many other things.PLAN: How often could these be reached? Knowing this case, I know you are going to respond it is just an option. But if you have no proof of an option possibly being used, then you have no reason to implement said option.ADVANTAGE 1: There is no real proof of this. Mark Levin is a super conservative source, so extremely biased. His argument for his own plan is not to be trusted in the real policy world. As for Congress, did I mention it is politically polarised earlier? How could it band together to be able to achieve an override? This has not been proved.ADVANTAGE 2: Why do we need to take the SCOTUS down a notch? Do you have a chip on your personal sleeve against the court? Did the court do something wrong to Farris? Besides assaulting his so called "valid" interpretation to the Constitution? What other reason do we have to consider this an advantage?So you have several examples of states needing an override. My question I pose to you to answer in Round 2 is this. Was it possible to keep the power of the state higher than the federal government, and at the same time survive the Industrial Revolution, the World Wars, The Cold War, and the Civil War? Was it possible to give more power to the states, or were concession made in those moments that lowered state power?With that, I await a response. Sorry for little sources, but it is late at night, and I needed to get a response out to not forfeit.