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

The Supreme Court is little enough of a check on Congressional power already, considering how the Senate has the sole ability to approve candidates. All they have to do is hold their majority until a few old justices die, and then they can hold everything up until a nominee comes before them they approve of. Adding a 2/3 majority clause would just weaken the brakes on mob rule even further. "The point of having a written constitution is to have laws prevail over men," In which case the constitution is pointless. Men make the laws, it so happens, meaning they are the victor in any such conflict once enough of them mob up. If the Constitution is pointless, it follows the resolution's recommendation is of no benefit. " Under present tradition the Supreme Court has declared that abortion is guaranteed by a right to privacy that is not spelled out in the Constitution. A future Court might ban abortion on the grounds that a right to life is guaranteed by the Constitution." Where does the constitition guarantee a right to life for something that isn't even human yet? Homo sapien, perhaps, but human? It does, however, guarantee that no citizen can be deprived of property (including their womb) without due process. It also guarantees that no person shall be forced to quarter soldiers in their home in peacetime, let alone in their womb- if it disallows the forced quartering of fully grown soldiers, what follows logically when you shift the balance even further by offering up with something with a cognitive ability less than a rat to force someone to quarter? "Arguments in favor of judicial activism must justify the principle of benevolent despotism over democracy, and why it can be trusted to always be benevolent." You do not have to defend the benevolence of something when the alternative is so clearly not benevolent. Mob rule, i.e. electoral democracies, left unchecked, spawned Hitler. In more benign times, still, every election is some sort of advance auction in stolen goods-- just look at the sickening sight of presidential or congressional candidates in even America, promising so many people stolen goods such as welfare, Social Security, nationalized health care, corporate subsidies... Heck, half the time they usually get away with (get elected by) not even telling you WHO they are going to steal it from! A few despots putting the brakes on this thieving mob, regardless of their motives, seems to be quite in order. Would you rather have an evil unopposed to deal with, or an evil splintered into two factions that fight each other, so they don't have as much time to deal with you? Benevolence from such a despot would be just a bonus, not needed to hope for their arrival. " In the democracies of other countries, rights are preserved under the sole responsibility of the legislatures of those countries." Please name one democracy in the history of this earth where human rights have stopped a government from anything it wanted badly enough? Every government I've noticed is in the habit of stealing from whichever citizens don't matter according to the electoral math. "The propose amendment does not overthrow the American tradition of Constitutional government, but instead restores a more democratic tradition mechanism for interpretation of the Constitution." The constitution, as ineffective a barrier as it is, was meant to put a STOP to democracy. It cannot be honored by democracy except in the breach.