Question

Consider the topic of the "American Politics in Comparative Perspective" feature. A proposed constitutional amendment would allow Congress to have the power to override a Supreme Court ruling by a two-thirds vote of both houses, much as it is able to override a presidential veto. Would you support or oppose such an amendment?

Answer 1

Oppose such an ammendment.

Basic Structure of the essay

In a question where we have to take a stance, its better that we provide logical explanations that are linked to each other for such a stance. Here we are opting to Oppose the above stance. The reasons should be explained to an extent that they cannot be further questioned. Once the reasons for such a stance are given, try summoning up all the arguments with a good conclusion.

Certain Reasons for the above stance that can be referred.

1. US inherently follows an individualistic approach. It gives the individual more weightage than the society. this is considered a deomocracy that certainly differs from the other democracies such as that of Germany, Britain, Italy etc. If we look at American Politics in Comparitive Perspectives, we will find both similarities and dissimilarities in this nature. However, for this context we will look at certain differences to emphasize why such an ammendment shouldn't be supported.
2. The individualisic nature makes it a sufficient factor in this debate. The interests of individuals are put forward in the American Democracy. An example would be sufficient make this point through. The education system of Germany has the state interferrin in the education system of the children. They have suggestive measures for their future. This happens simply for the purpose of imposing a societal interest forward. Whereas in USA, the students take their own course in education and no direct interference is there from the state.
3. Since the individualistic nature is well established, we will draw a relation between the Judiciart and the Legislature. The judiciary is an independant body. There is seperation of powers between all the bodies - legislature, executive, judiciary. This ensures that no one has power enough that they misuse it. Moreover the judges in USA, unlike in other democracies are elected rather than appointed. This election shows a higher seperation of powers in the american democracy as against other democracies.

A summary of the above points

Therefore if such an ammendment is passed, it can be detrimental to the american democracy. The state rule will increase disregarding the individualistic nature, they will have power to change the judgment of the Supreme Court showing the powers aren't seperated anymore. Indirectly, the judiciary would be working under the legislature. Their excess power could be misused as well as there wouldn't be any other body to keep a check on them. Such an ammendment would increaese the state interference in a country that inherently individualistic in nature and would undermine the authority of the Judiciary that inherently is elected in such a democracy. Its inherent nature is to be involved with the legislature as less as possibe, as against other democracies.