Abstract
The democratic system of the United States should presuppose transparency and good faith associated with the activities of the fundamental institutions such as the Supreme Court of Justice. The real practice confirmed that there are some significant shortcomings associated with the structure of this legislative body such as absence of definite term limits for the members of the Court to carry out their functions. According to the Constitution there are no definite terms of responsibility. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior. At the same time the live tenure may result in lobbying of the interests presumed by specific groups of people. Moreover the possibility of corruption and unlawful actions increases as the result long-living nomination of the judges. The author of this research makes proposal of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and discusses juridical, theoretical and political aspects of its implementation. The provisions of Section 1 of Article 3 are subject to amending.
Text of the Amendment
It is important to mention that the proposed amendment shall have impact only on the system of nomination of Judges of the Supreme Court. The aim of the amendment is to implement an effective mechanism of preventing the activities of the judges associated with any action prohibited by the general law and code of professional ethics such as corruption, conspiracy and fraud schemes.
The amendments to the Constitution may be written in the Sector 1 of the Article three of the Constitution or by adding one more sector to the Article 3.
The official formulation of the proposed amendment is:
SECTION 1: Supreme Court justice positions will have term limits.
SECTION 2: No person shall serve on the Supreme Court for more than 8 years.
SECTION 3: All current Supreme Court justice members term limits will begin their 8year limit with a passage of this amendment.
It should be noted that the text of proposed amendment shall be subject to revision, if it is necessary, by the authorized bodies without prejudice to its essential sense. That is why in statement of the provision it was decided to point out its basic juridical sense rather than literary form.
Analysis of the problem
In order to understand possible outcomes of the proposed amendment, let us analyze the main opinions of experts and general public. Furthermore additional research in context of current situation will result in forecast of the potential opposing forces. The main sources of information were official publications of governmental institutions and competent authorities. That is why it is fair to say that the facts stated could be trusted in order to formulate overall conclusions.
The idea of the life tenure comes from the juridical reality of the times when this conception was implemented. The Framers managed to make Supreme Court independent from the impact of political branch of power. They purported to secure the decision of judges from popular tendencies and passions existing in society. Moreover in times of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and company the life expectancy was significantly lower than now. The first ten justices served in average less than 10 years in contrast to modern judges that hold their posts up to 30-50 years.
It should be noted that in modern times there is no sense in isolating judges from the outer world by the means of life tenure. The decisions of today require more innovative approaches. These approaches could not be provided by conservative judges who hold their positions more than ten years. The meaning of life tenure has changed significantly due to increased longevity and prestige of the activities of the federal judges.
There are some really significant problems that are usually associated with the absence of the term limits. The aging processes lead not only to physical, but also to mental weakening of a person. Therefore his ability to take decisions independently may be doubted. The life tenure may also lead to the intellectual incompetence of the judge and inability to decide the cases requiring innovative settlement.
Moreover the implementation of new mechanisms of the law system regulation is impossible in case the members of the system seek no changes within. The potential level of corruption increases as the result of the life tenure. The unlawful schemes may function without control throughout the unlimited tenure. Increase of longevity almost imperils the rotation in the powerful office that is the inalienable feature of the representative government. Furthermore the level of accountability of the authorities is low.
Slower turnover increased the level of competition among the judges nominated to fill the vacancy. Each new appointment is associated with the severe stakes among candidates. The factors of diminished productivity and increase of the potential miscarriage of justice are the last but not the least reasons of necessity to set the term limit of 8 years for the Judges of the Supreme Court. With term limits in place, the transparency of the law enforcement will be enhanced.
Opposition
The debates between backers and followers of the implementation of the term limit system for the Judges of the Supreme Court have started quite long ago. The project of amendment to the Constitution setting the 18-year term limits was not passed due to strong resistance of the competitive authorities. The Judges of the Supreme Court of Justice have stated their protest against such amendment as it may significantly reduce their power.
The main arguments of opponents to the term limits are the high competence and great experience of the old judges as the result of the life tenure system. Some of them became legends of justice and their competitive opinions are needed to presume the tradition of the Supreme Court. Moreover different political and business entities that may have established connection with the judges will try to prevent the amendment from coming into force. Nevertheless the public will mainly support the proposed amendment bearing in mind the modern challenges for the democracy of US.
Conclusion
As the result of current research the draft of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of US was presented. Due to the necessity of modernizing the system of legislature and significant shortcoming of the structure of the Supreme Court of Justice it was decided to set the term limit of 8 years for a Judge. The proposed amendment refers to the Article 3 of the Constitution. It may be presented as separate Section of the Article or be written into the valid Section one of this Article. The Amendment shall probably face with the severe opposition by the conservative authorities of the US, Judges of the Supreme Court themselves and currently functioning the political and business entities that have established well-developed lobby chains. The necessity of the proposed Amendment is the reason of rather low productivity and accountability of the members of the Supreme Court. The lack of innovative decisions may lead to the stagnation of the legislative system. In case of adoption the amendment will also partially solved the problem of insufficient rotation and the turnover in the structure of the Supreme Court of Justice. On the basis of current research it is fair to state that the proposed amendment will change the legislative system of the US for the better.
References
Cane, David Morseck and Michael. Democracy of US - reality or myth. Chicago: CNP, 2016.
Lerner, Bill. Shall we amend the Constitution? Waschington: WP , 2015.
Linch, Mary. Functions and structure of the Supreme Court of Justice. New York: Law Press, 2014.
Milano, Christina. "The problems and perspectives of the US Constitution." The imperfectnesses of the Supreme Court of Justice responsibility system. Ed. Peter Brane. Orlando: PUY, 2015. 85-90.
Official transcript of the Constitution of US. n.d. 22 06 2016. <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html>.
