Would you allow the Constitution to be amended?

Question

Amended... to allow a group of special Federal Judges to monitor the President to make sure he does not violate the law. Please let us know what you think about this new idea at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Should_Judges_Monitor_the_President

(or here in Yahoo! Answers)
Thanks!
C.M. Fabara
Political Science Society
Brooklyn College, CUNY

Answer 1

Violation of separation of powers between the three branches, violates the very basis of the constitiution. Could also have effect on national security by disclosing classified information and on executive priviledge.

Answer 2

It won't happen, and what do you do with presidents who don't follow the law anyway.

We are suppose to have checks and balances, but when one person is allowed to usurp the power of another branch, and is not held accountable by the other branch, then out system is failing.

I quess the only way now to hold him accountable is at the ballot box, if that isn't rigged.

Seven of nine on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans and 4 by bush or his father. No help there anymore!

There was a court set up to hear and give authority for specific wiretapping. Bush ignored it, though it was law.

This guy is a Constitutional wrecking machine with no one willing to stop him!

I believe if you want to do anything, let an independent prosecutor be appointed and let him take his violations before the appropriate body.

This seems to especially happen when 1 party controls the White House, Congress, Senate and Supreme Court. It's a mockery of what our founding fathers envisioned as checks and balance!

Answer 3

Are you serious? That would take us away from the whole democracy thing we got going on. The U.S.C has provisions for the legislative branch to monitor and check the president. If the pres breaks the law, the legislature is supposed to handle business. Why would some people think that a whole bunch of appointed judges - rather than people actually voted into office - would provide a better check on illegal action? Besides, Federal judges are appointed by the president, obviously causing a conflict of interest.

Answer 4

Thats a stupid Idea. Almost as stupid as the Idea of amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. There are already provisions for checks and balances between the branches of government.
i would agree with federal Judges doing a think tank type thing and finding any loopholes and closing them. But monitoring the president, no way. There are somethings that the public just does not need to know.

Answer 5

That is a tough one. Although I don't think that our president needs a group of CEO's looking over his shoulder I think that he should be held accountable for any wrong actions he takes. The problem with this idea is that there will always be ways to hide info from the public and a group of federal judges. There is no such thing as 100% total disclosure. There has been and always will be ways of hiding these problems. One good example. The word "Classified". Just how much illegal activity has been hidden behind this word? We will never know.

Answer 6

No -- because I believe that federal judges just like everyone else can become political and decisions will be made not on fact but on politics and individual feelings towards the president in office at any given time. There are checks and balances written into our Constitution -- they can work if we let them.

Answer 7

particular, i might help it in a heartbeat. the U. S. became built on the backs of immigrants, and is meant to be the land of danger, the place the backside of the low can boost to be triumphant and wealthy. however the U. S. nevertheless denies those human beings the possibility to boost to the utmost place of work. permit's be severe, human beings, this regulation became put in place to end there being an English president, and it is now old and a relic of the previous. there are a number of deserving immigrants who could desire to be president serving in extreme score positions interior the U. S.. Governor Swartzenager, as an occasion, has earned the surprising to run for president. He lived the american dream. He rose from close to obscurity to grow to be a action picture famous person and then a political famous person. Going from rags to riches. he's a citizen and is extraordinarily a lot as American as apple pie, yet he can not run for president. it is stupid and loopy. permit me positioned it yet differently. If a Mexican lady smuggles drugs into the U. S., gets arrested, and can provide start on an identical time as watching for trial, that newborn can run for president as they are going to be a US citizen. regardless of their mom being an unlawful and a felon who got here to the U. S. with a suitcase crammed with crack. yet Governor Swartzenager can not run even although he's done greater for united states of america of america than maximum organic born voters ever will do.

Answer 8

Carlos...Federal Judges are appointed by the President.

Doesn't that present a conflict of interest?

Also you will find that NOTHING in these United States is harder to do then amend the Constitution (and that is as it should be).

Answer 9

the constitution should not be amended to promote civil violations. Geiorge Orwell's 1984 piece provides examples of what can happen if the government is given such power.

Answer 10

Never, in this lifetime. Judges are appointed mostly, sometimes elected by those of us who know next to nothing about law.
Special prosecutors usually have mess up their jobs - why would I trust special judges - federal or otherwise. Politics are hard to keep out of appointments.