To view this on the COS website, click here a-constitution-improvement-sorely-needed

A Constitution Improvement Sorely Needed

In the chatter amongst proponents of a convention of the states, one often hears acknowledgment that our American Constitution has flaws and that the Founders knew improvements would likely be needed. After that general statement, however, specific errors or omissions are seldom enumerated.

According to William Watkins who recently wrote, “Rethinking Absolute Judicial Independence” for the June/July 2025 issue Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, one glaring defect has been revealed: judges are agents of the people, but the people have no direct or indirect recourse to discipline or remove them.

Judges have historically been granted great acclaim and honor, almost godlike in their honesty, neutrality, and wisdom. The cultural kayfabe* is that they are non-partisan and fully trustworthy in evaluating the correctness of new laws or interpreting the Constitution.

If a ruling goes against a President, he is “supposed to move on to other matters and assure supporters that he had tried to fulfill campaign promises but was required to defer to the independent judiciary.” High School civics classes teach that, “judges should be insulated from popular opinion and political pressure. Unbounded judicial independence . . . is a blessing conferred by the Founding Fathers.”

Watkins goes on to say that in most of our history that high esteem has worked, based upon society having normal good Christian moral behavior. But good behavior is a low bar. Now, in the political maelstrom of hatred and evil intent against the office of President and the dismantling of our culture, moral behavior has seriously degraded, including the judiciary.

Recent nationwide injunctions have halted much of what President Trump and a majority of society wished to happen. Pronounced at the whim of individual federal judges, the injunctions show an abuse of power. They have usurped the will of the people.

At this time, there is no direct method for removal of judges except by impeachment. The author states that “impeachment (does) not provide accountability to the people in either theory or practice.”

Essays published in 1877 by a lawyer under the pseudonym “Brutus,“ ”…predicted that the effects of government would be felt not through the executive or legislative branches, but through judicial power.”

He interpreted Article III as authorizing judges to determine all questions concerning the meaning of the Constitution. “Interpretation, he predicted, would not be limited to the text of the document because of the Constitution’s ‘general and indefinite terms. Thus, the judges would explain the Constitution according to the reasoning and spirit of it.’” Over the last several decades the question of whether to interpret the Constitution as a changing, fluid document or staying faithful to the original text has become a battleground.

Brutus could see that making the judiciary dependent on good behavior would be dangerous. “Brutus divined that Congress would defer to the courts on the construction of the delegated powers. The federal judiciary will lean strongly in favor of the general government and will give such an explanation to the Constitution as will favor an extension of its jurisdiction.”

This would create an, “unaccountable judiciary independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Before long the judges would ‘feel themselves independent of heaven itself.’” If a court made an erroneous ruling, the judgement could not be corrected. And such errors would not likely form the basis for articles of impeachment.

How is our country to fix this problem? First, stop bowing to the judiciary as if it is a priesthood entitled to more deference than a congressman, president, or agency bureaucrat. Mr. Watkins states that, “Federal judges are politicians . . . using their political skills to select individuals who have access to senators, White House counsel, or others with a say in the judicial nomination process. They are owed no special esteem.”

Second, modify the Constitution “subjecting the judges to removal by the concurring vote of both houses of Congress,” rather than impeachment. According to Watkins, “The prospect of removal will surely influence them to think twice before issuing nationwide injunctions stopping the deportation of gang members or discovering new constitutional rights to engage in depraved conduct and lifestyles.”

This change can be proposed during the upcoming convention of the states. Such an amendment will likely find favor among our citizens, which increases the likelihood of ratification.

For more information about that convention, click HERE

*a tacit agreement to behave as if something is real, sincere or genuine when it is not

Watkins, Jr., William J., Rethinking Absolute Judicial Independence, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, Vol. 49, No. 6, June/July 2025

Page Metadata
Login Required to view?	No
Created:	2025-06-24 03:33 GMT
Updated:	2025-06-24 17:33 GMT
Published:	2025-06-24 17:33 GMT
Converted:	2025-11-11 12:05 GMT
Change Author:	Myrl Nisely
Credit Author: