The Herald's recent editorial on the Supreme Court demonstrates a poor understanding of the role and power of the Supreme Court (" Window opens for vital Supreme Court reform ," Page A4, Feb. 18).
Had the editorial board read all 143 words contained in Article V of the Constitution, the board members no doubt would have recognized that amendments to the document can be made only by Congress with approval from the states or by the states themselves through constitutional conventions.
The court interprets the Constitution but has no power to change it.
On a marginally brighter note, the editorial writer did correctly guess the number of ways in which the Constitution can be amended.
Furthermore, the editorial states that the court's power must be put in check. As anyone who successfully completed a junior-high-level civics course recalls, both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government are able to place such checks on the court. Congress can, for instance, remove justices from the court if they egregiously overstep their authority, nullifying the editorial's claims about lifetime appointments.
ADVERTISEMENT
Orin Kerr's proposal of limited - in this case, 18-year - appointments for justices, which the editorial endorses, is both impractical and ill-thought out as well. Neither Kerr nor the Herald editorial provides any feasible way to implement such a plan or to deal with intransigent Senates like our current one, which would refuse to consider any candidates for the court placed before them.
Brent Braga
Grand Forks
