Blog #4- Debating the Constitution

“The drafters of the 1787 Constitution had good reasons for giving life  tenure to federal judges -- reasons that are no valid today.”

    The average life expectancy during the 17th century lasted only 30 to 40 years. Because of healthcare progressing, the life expectancy of a U.S  citizen has more than doubled (70-80 years). While the US Constitution was being drafted, decisions were made that satisfied the nation’s standards during that time (18th century). In article 111, the Constitution establishes that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”. The notion behind  “good behavior” is vague but straightforward. It was not specific on how long the judges should serve for a term, hence, their lifetime tenure. However, The U.S. Constitution doesn't specifically grant Supreme Court justices a lifetime appointment. As long as they do not commit any illegal activities, they will keep their job in office. This means that the only actions that can remove a federal judge are death, resignation, or impeachment by Congress. Jamal Greene is saying that because times have changed, the government should revisit the Constitution (specifically where the justices are concerned) and alter it so that it can be applied to our current time.

I chose this quote because I do not completely agree with it. For instance, Jamal Greene, the writer of the article, believes that the US government needs to revisit the constitution (article 3 to be exact) and set term limits for federal judges. If Supreme Court justices are given life tenures, they are free to issue rulings based on the law, rather than political favor. Now, majority of those who run for office are politicians; they sat what the public wants to hear to gain popularity and win votes. However, I do agree with the idea that in a democracy, no one person should hold so much power for so long. It is not a crime to have different ideas and have disagreements, but in our current day in age, it is wise to keep the constitution as it is.