The U.S. Constitution Should be Amended to Limit Judicial Activism

:Con makes the error of supposing that if Japan has harsh prisons or France has some limitations of human rights that it proves overall that there is mob rule and that those democratic countries have no better overall record of human rights than North Korea or Zimbabwe or any other fascist state. First, keep in mind the mention of the harshness of prisons was in the context of victimless crimes :D. Second, we are not comparing these countries to fascist states, which happen to frequently be democratic. We are comparing them to the United States. The United States has much fuller free speech rights, and so far a freer economy, than any of the countries under mob rule. An unchecked democracy is the only criterion of "mob rule," i.e., absolute rule by the majority. In theory, a mob-ruled country could exist that respected rights, in practice, they tend toward doing so less than countries with a check on democracy. "However, that none are perfect does not make them all equal. Con must prove that, overall, unchecked power favors human rights by contravening democracy. " You are misframing the issue. The Court is not unchecked, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, it's members are chosen by the elected branches of government. It can only slow things by declaring them unconstitutional, if the majority doesn't have a double-take at this, and have it's position leavened with time once out of the passion of immediately passing it, it still happens to rule. The most flagrant violations of human rights tend to be passed quickly in the passion of a revolution, including those such as Zimbabwe and North Korea. They are signs of what happens when there are no courts able to put the brakes on, not signs of what happens when there are. Statistically speaking, of course, since unchecked rule need be but one person, and democracy needs to be many, and most people favor some violations of human rights, a government that respects them fully is all but impossible without a dictator, but again, a dictator is not at issue, a democracy with strong brakes versus a democracy with weak ones is. :His examples of surveillance of public spaces is erroneous, because there is no human right that protects against being observed in a public space. I did not argue there was. But considering the violations of actual rights by a government, increase of surveillance means increase in the effectiveness of violating such rights. In a perfect government, surveillance would be of no concern, in an imperfect government, it is of concern. "The argument that imposing taxes is a violation of human rights is novel. Con recognizes that there is no possibility of having such a right recognized democratically, so the only change of getting what he wants is through a Court edict." I am not operating under the delusion that the Court will recognize the right to property. I was simply offering it as the egregious offense for which all present governments must answer. "Con argues that the Supreme Court is not omnipotent, because is a weak despot. It is not necessary to be an absolute monarch to be a monarch, or an absolute despot to be a despot. The question is whether having substantially unchecked power within the domain of the Supreme Court is the best way to determine and enforce human rights." It is not "unchecked." We went over this. "Con offered no evidence that Court decisions are ignored "half the time." " It's an expression. A figure of speech. "that is true, con should be able to produce a substantial list of Court decisions that were ignored. For example, he should be able to prove that Roe v. Wade was ignored" See: South Dakota's laws. " 4. I claimed that democracies do an adequate job of protecting human rights. Con replies, "No, because no human right that the majority wants is what needs protection. It's only the ones that the majority doesn't want that are threatened. A "simple majority" does absolutely nothing to protect rights that a despot wouldn't have to anyway." This repeats the logical error of supposing that because that democracies do not do a perfect job of protecting human rights, that they are therefore no better that dictatorships. He states directly that dictators would grant all the human rights that a majority would want. So, for example, according to Con, North Korea and Cuba should have all the rights of free speech given in Japan, France, or the U.K., which he proclaims to be under mob rule. This is clearly false." Majorities in North Korea and Cuba are different from those in Japan, France, or the UK... but none of the above recognizes a "right" to free speech. So a bad example for two different reasons. A despot in FRANCE would have to recognize rights to the same extent at least that a democracy does. Cuba and North Korea's rights systems would be similarly unaltered if they were to switch to having elections. As an example, elections are being phased in for certain positions in China, the conduct of those positions however has shown no evidence of change. " The way that a written constitution improves over a simple legislative majority is that the Constitution determines certain rights in sober moments when rights issues are considered with great care, are voted into effect by two-thirds majorities, and thereafter can only be changed a two-thirds majority. The proposed amendment does nothing to change that system." Yes, it does. It removes the fact that that two-thirds majority must also be attended by a three-quarter majority of states. This slows the ability of an urban majority, say, even a 2/3 one, which has not formed yet but may one day, from disarming a rural minority, from leaving our populace no further means of resisting future expansions of oppression. "What is changed it that new alleged rights cannot be invented by the whim of the Court." As far as I can tell no rights have been invented by the whim of the court. The "Right to privacy" is derived as a logical precursor of the Fourth Amendment, for example. " 5. Con argues, "Just because the Supreme Court is too weak to uphold the rule of logic is not sufficient to establish the truth of it's statements, further, the womb is presumably MORE fundamental property than a house." There is no weakness in the Court that limits their ruling." The fact that the court is appointed by elected officials institutionally weakens it as a check. ". If the court wanted to make the fanciful claim that abortion is just like quartering soldiers, they could do so." There is nothing fanciful about it, simply controversial (and I think you meant OUTLAWING abortion is just like quartering soldiers). And that is precisely why justices who wanted to do that would not end up on the Court. As an institution, the Court requires some previous majority to be able to overturn the current one that is inflamed in the heat of the moment. This prevents it from checking anything by any arguments save those which have at some point been sponsored implicitly by some majority. "Con's real objection is that the Court did not use it's omnipotent power as he wished they would. " Omnipotent? Nine old fogies who can be replaced at the whim of elected officials are not omnipotent. "The Court could at any time find the explicit right to life granted by the 14th Amendment to prohibit abortion." No, it could not. It could, at worst, overturn Roe V. Wade. It is incapable of independently prohibiting actions of private citizens, it is solely a check on the government. If it overturned Roe V. Wade, things would be no worse than they would be with no Supreme Court. It can strike down laws, not make new ones, that is it's power, and why I support it... the vast majority of laws out there ought be struck down. This fact, of course, seems to address the remainder of your argument.