Question: What fraction of the governing body with the power to remove a justice from the court of criminal appeals must approve an amendment?

The Constitution provides that justices ``shall hold their offices during good behavior ''(unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term`` good behavior'' is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign, or retire. Only one justice has been impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate (March 1805). Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970; and Abe Fortas resigned while hearings were being organized in 1969), but they did not reach a vote in the House. No mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign. <SEP> Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either -- as determined by Congress -- the legislatures of three - quarters of the states or state ratifying conventions in three - quarters of the states. The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a state's population or length of time in the Union. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two - thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two - thirds of the state legislatures. <SEP> in 2006, a toxic waste spill off the coast of côte d'ivoire, from a european ship, prompted the commission to look into legislation against toxic waste. environment commissioner stavros dimas stated that "such highly toxic waste should never have left the european union". with countries such as spain not even having a crime against shipping toxic waste, franco frattini, the justice, freedom and security commissioner, proposed with dimas to create criminal sentences for "ecological crimes". the competence for the union to do this was contested in 2005 at the court of justice resulting in a victory for the commission. that ruling set a precedent that the commission, on a supranational basis, may legislate in criminal law – something never done before. so far, the only other proposal has been the draft intellectual property rights directive. motions were tabled in the european parliament against that legislation on the basis that criminal law should not be an eu competence, but was rejected at vote. however, in october 2007, the court of justice ruled that the commission could not propose what the criminal sanctions could be, only that there must be some. <SEP> the centrality of the "separation" concept to the religion clauses of the constitution was made explicit in everson v. board of education, 330 u.s. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a new jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and catholic schools. this was the first case in which the court applied the establishment clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment as applying the bill of rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. citing jefferson, the court concluded that "the first amendment has erected a wall between church and state. that wall must be kept high and impregnable. we could not approve the slightest breach." <SEP> As with the former Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, appeals from many fields of law are likely to be selected for hearing, including commercial disputes, family matters, judicial review claims against public authorities and issues under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Supreme Court also hears some criminal appeals, but not from Scotland, as there is no general right of appeal from the High Court of Justiciary, Scotland's highest criminal court, other than with respect to devolution issues. The Supreme Court's focus is on cases that raise points of law of general public importance.