There are plenty of reasons to change the US Constitution, but I’m wondering specifically about the current dilemma the US seems to be in re the executive seeming to have no desire to listen to the courts. The US Marshals, the law enforcement arm of the judiciary, is ultimately under the control of the executive. What changes would need to be made to the Constitution to ensure that there 1) can’t be a conflict between separate law enforcement agencies in two branches, and 2) the executive branch can never, even theoretically, have the ability to seize control of the government from the other branches?
Judiciary has no enforcement arm. Remove the DOJ from the executive branch and place it under the Judicial branch.
Now you no longer have reason to go “We don’t prosecute sitting Presidents.” ;)
This has always been a problem with the court system:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
“In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”[7][8]”
As long as we’re talking pie in the sky and checks and balances and such… there needs to be an easier way to over-ride bad Supreme Court decisions than simply ignoring them.
As kids, we’re all taught that Executive/Legislative/Judicial are like Rock/Paper/Scissors.
Legislative passes laws, Executive signs or vetoes them, Judicial states if they’re constitutional.
But while the Legislative can over-ride a veto with a 2/3rds majority, if the Supreme Court makes a ruling, the only way of reversing them STARTS with a 2/3rds majority in the House AND Senate, and then requires a 3/4 majority of states.
That bar seems entirely too high. Perhaps add an over-ride by 2/3rds of Circuit courts. There are 13 circuit courts, so 9? You get 9 / 13 courts saying “No, that’s a shitty decision.” Should be good enough to vacate.
This is the answer right here.