On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 23:30:01 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 7/4/2012 8:30 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 07:55:22 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

The adjustment that is needed is Constitutional amendment that
establishes the rules of interpretation far more narrowly than the
courts have done.
Clarke - you just invented (or defined the specs for...) a perpetual motion
machine. Create an ammendment (as stated above), which will go to the
SCOTUS, which will more broadly interpret it, but it requires narrow
interpretation...
One idea I heard the other day (sorry, don't remember where) was a
Constitutional amendment allowing Congress, with a supermajority, to overrule
SCotUS decisions within a set amount of time (say, one year).

The amendment process itself is just that, only the power is in the
hands of the States rather than Congress, which I think is a safer place
to entrust such a power.

Interpretation amendment

In this instance, the suggestion was that with a supermajority, Congress can
overrule SCotUS. SCotUS doesn't (in theory) write the constitution.