Well if new amendment proposals are proof positive that people only defend of the constitution when it agrees with themselves and that any disagreement is surely due to fits of “passion”, then the only conclusion is that all the amendments should be done away with entirely, right Dwight? That is basically what you are proposing. After all, all 27 amendments were passed in fits of passion.
But back to the main point, anyone who thinks that the intent of the framers was for Supreme Court justices to be independent legislators seriously misunderstands the basis of this country. The fact that they have become so is one of the biggest problems the country has.
“Article III
…
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. ”
How that permits the Supreme Court to legislate a “right” to abortion, to cite one obvious example, is beyond understanding. But the problem goes far far beyond that one egregious example. The Supreme Court observes NO LIMITS whatsoever on its power. What a travesty of justice it has become.
