On 04 Jul 2012 15:33:04 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

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).

Can't the Congresscritters do that now? They can pass a bill that
revokes whatever the Supremes have said. If it becomes law, that should
have the same effect, unless the law is declared unconstitutional.

No, not on matters of Constitutional interpretation. SCotUS is the final
word.