P
press
Judges on the federal level do not have to run for reelection or worry about getting reappointed after serving a finite term. This helps minimize the influence of politics on the judicial branch, thus increasing the likelihood that the parties involved would get a fair trial. However, when the Kelo vs. New London case came about, I emailed my Congressman proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would allow Congress to overturn a Supreme Court decision with a three-fourths vote in the Senate and House of Representatives (I figured this was fair since, with three-fourths required, the Supreme Court would still be very influential, since overriding it would be even harder than overriding a presidential veto). When my Congressman responded, he said "But passing this amendment would cause a huge structural change in the federal government. This is not what our Founding Fathers intended."
This makes me think: Why do we think of the Founding Fathers as these supermortals who can do no wrong? Sure they made a Constitution that has lasted over two hundred years, but that wasn't accomplished without compromise and intense debate. They were just as lucky as they were educated (keep in mind from history class back in school, they were far more educated than the typical American at that time; more than half were college graduates), and they get more prestige and fame than God himself. Why?
This makes me think: Why do we think of the Founding Fathers as these supermortals who can do no wrong? Sure they made a Constitution that has lasted over two hundred years, but that wasn't accomplished without compromise and intense debate. They were just as lucky as they were educated (keep in mind from history class back in school, they were far more educated than the typical American at that time; more than half were college graduates), and they get more prestige and fame than God himself. Why?