1. Each nation should be allowed to determine what the rights of its citizens should be; no international body, like the United Nations, can establish universal human right.
Universal human rights can be described as those rights that are considered to be enjoyed by every individual. International declarations on human rights should, in no way, be considered as a legal requirement to individual states and governments; rather, they should be taken as yardsticks that allow standardizing the internal policy of the country. Individual nations should better distinguish the policy concerning the rights of their citizens taking the set of international standards as a point of reference. Indeed, universal declarations reflect global conscience, offering individual citizens a basis of assessing their respective states’ commitment to human rights. However, this global conscience is a mere standard, and a point of reference that cannot prevail over individual states’ wisdom and authority in determining its people’s welfare.
Additionally, the universal human rights, such as the rights determined by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were developed in a specific context of the post-World War Two period. Change of global and individual state’s circumstances continue to undermine their relevance in addressing specific needs
2. The United States must be brought back to the original principles of the founding fathers, as expressed in the Constitution of 1787.
The principles enshrined in the Constitution of 1787 have remained more or less the same with the necessary amendments being made over the years, hence taking the current document as a deviation from the original form is erroneous. The founding fathers of the great nation believed that it was important for a good Constitution to stand the test of time, and yet to keep pace with the changing society’s demands. In their wisdom, they made provisions, for instances, that would necessitate such amendments and conscious of the presence of a minority, who would wish to block the greater society’s goal, or force hasty amendments, they proposed to implement a dual system.
Therefore, the question should be on how to make a more conscious amendment but not treat them as damaging a complete and sacred document. It can, therefore, be said that the founding fathers would be proud to see a document they invested so much in to evolve over time and still serve its noble course.
3. The Constitution should be changed so that the citizens of the United States have power to recall, by popular referendum, any federal judge, including a justice of the Supreme Court
Allowing such recall power can be described as a direct democracy, and a provision that has been a subject of argument in the constitutions of many countries. Many nations have differed on the legitimacy and intents concerning an individual’s power to recall judges. Notable is the fact that the society consists of individuals with diverse opinions, views, and who may pursue conflicting ideologies, and while being well-aware of the central role that politics play in the society in guiding or misleading, allowing such right to recall would mean legitimizing politics within the judicial circles.
Given the fact that it is difficult to accurately state whether a right to recall should be construed broadly or limited to some conduct, and the sensitivity of the surrounding services of top judicial officers in the United States, it is a bad suggestion to create such an amendment. This would go against the principle of separation of power, undermine the independence of the judges, and would also allow political interests to control the judicial system.
4. The power of judicial review is an undemocratic restriction on the power of the people, through their elected representatives, to enact policies they deem to be in the public interest.
This approach attempts to view the United States as a parliamentary-governed country, which it is not in essence. However, the most erroneous assertion underlying this notion is that a nation cannot be democratic until and unless the legislature is granted sovereignty. Judicial review is a check against encroachment from other sources and an assurance that citizens can seek redress in case when legislative decisions are made illegally.
Judicial review is democratic on a social scale and its quality lies in the wisdom of its formation. It should, therefore, not be measured rigidly, and interplay should be allowed between various arms of government as long as they don’t pursue conflicting goals. The need for judicial review can, therefore, be not overemphasized, and its role in advancing the same democracy it is accused of stifling is clear.