The forefathers of this great country wrote the Constitution of the United States as the basis in which this country should be founded, but were smart enough to realize that what they wrote would need to be adapted as time would pass because nothing is unchangeable and what made sense twenty years ago might not be too wise today. That is the beauty of our Constitution and why it has served as a model for democracies all over the world.
During the last 225 years, there have been many amendments to the Constitution. The idea that the Constitution is unchangeable (like the Bible) is outrageous and preposterous, only the Tea Party and extreme libertarians can believe that the law that ruled the nation two centuries ago can be applied today as originally intended.
According to Mitt Romney’s website, he believes that the Constitution’s words “have meaning,” as if the Constitution didn’t mean a thing for the rest of us. As usual, Romney has to appease the extreme right that, having no other alternative, is backing up a Mormon they would not even give the time of day if they had a choice. The Tea Party is supporting Mitt Romney in his candidacy for the Presidency regardless of how much they dislike him because they dislike President Obama even more. But Mitt knows that if there were a White, Evangelical, Right-Wing nut that would decide to run at the last minute, those campaigning and donating money for him would reverse their support in a blink of an eye, for that reason he has no alternative but to repeat like a parrot what the Teapers believe and stand for. That is why Mitt Romney is now implying that the Constitution should be kept as it was written in 1787.
Mitt Romney asserts, “The job of a judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government.” Where does it say that in the original Constitution? The Constitution clearly defines what the roles of the three branches of government are, including the Legislative Branch. There is no mention whatsoever about “restrains on government” but on Article V, there is definitive assertion about the legality of Amendments to the Constitution, but Teapers don’t like that article very much and I am sure that if they could, they would probably erase it.
Mitt continues to say, “At times over the past hundred years, some justices of the Supreme Court did not carry out that duty. There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated. At other points, the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history.” I am very glad Mitt feels that way, to tell you the truth so do I, why on earth these Right-Wing Justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) came up with constitutional rights for corporations, rendering to them the same rights of a person? Can corporations (1) create life (2) donate organs (3) be executed (4) get divorced (5) be unfaithful (6) go to church (7) cry (8) laugh (9) get married (10) die for this country? Yet, corporations for the first time in Global history are considered a person and all thanks to the Right-Wing Justices appointed by G. W. Bush and Reagan before him.
On his website, Mitt promises to nominate more judges like the ones that ignored the Constitution and who are enjoying their appointment for life to such lucrative and influential position, which by the way… where in the Constitution does it say that Supreme and Federal Justices are appointed for life? In Article III, Section 1 it reads: “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” It seems that “good behaviour” translates into life but why? I truly believe that we have been fooled into believing that we are stuck with the morons that wear the ropes in the Supreme and Federal Court. We must demand their destitution particularly from the Supreme Court on the grounds of "bad behaviour", borderline treason, having stripped our constitutional rights over the rights of corporations, going against the Constitution. No Judge should be serving for a life-term, not a Supreme or a Federal Justice. We have accepted what a bunch of attorneys have said Article III means, but even the Legal Definition of "good behaviour" does not translates into a life term. This is the definition of “GOOD BEHAVIOUR” according to a Legal Dictionary: "Conduct authorized by law. Surety of good behaviour may be demanded from any person who is justly suspected, upon sufficient grounds, of intending to commit a crime or misdemeanor. Surety. for good behaviour is somewhat similar to surety of the peace, but the recognizance is more easily forfeited, and it ought to be demanded with greater caution. 1 Binn. 98, n.; 2 Yeates, 437; 14 Vin. Ab. 21; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t. As to what is a breach of good behaviour, see 2 Mart. N. S. 683; Hawk. b. 1, c. 61, s. 6 Chit. Pr. 676. Vide @Surdy of the peace."
We already have five Conservative Supreme Justices; they already hold the majority and we can’t afford more of them. We need to change the length of time a Judge is appointed to the Supreme Court; maybe they should serve for the same length as the president, perhaps 10 years but definitively not for a lifetime. No Judge should serve for a lifetime; no one should possess such power!
Note: I am using the same spelling as that in our Constitution for the word "behavior."