This resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. It requires ratification by three-fourths of the states within seven years.
Ted Cruz
Senator
TX
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. State legislatures must ratify the amendment within seven years, with a three-fourths majority required for approval.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment Sets Supreme Court Size at Nine: States Have Seven Years to Ratify
This proposed constitutional amendment aims to lock in the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. It's a direct move, stating plainly that the Court shall be composed of nine justices, and it gives states seven years to ratify this change through their legislatures. Three-fourths of the states need to agree for it to pass.
Locking It In
The core of this amendment is straightforward: it permanently fixes the Supreme Court's size. Right now, while we traditionally have nine justices, there's nothing in the Constitution that actually sets that number. This amendment changes that. It means no future Congress could try to change the Court's size without another constitutional amendment – a high bar to clear. For example, a small business owner running a cafe wouldn't have to worry about sudden shifts in major legal interpretations due to a change in the Court's composition driven by short-term political goals. It provides a level of predictability.
Real-World Ripple Effects
So, what does this mean in practice? Think of it like this: if you're a construction worker, you rely on consistent building codes. This amendment is like setting a foundational code for the Supreme Court. It aims to prevent the kind of major, potentially disruptive shifts that could come from adding more justices. This could be seen as good for those who want stability in how laws are interpreted. It reinforces the existing structure, which has been in place for over 150 years. The seven-year timeframe for ratification is a key detail. It means state legislatures will need to consider this amendment, and there will be a defined period for debate and decision.
Potential Sticking Points
While the amendment itself is simple, getting it ratified could be tricky. The seven-year limit could become a point of contention. Some might argue it's too long, allowing for drawn-out political battles. Others might see it as too short, not giving enough time for thorough consideration. Also, while this amendment aims for stability, it could also be seen as reducing flexibility. What if, down the line, there's a legitimate, non-political reason to reconsider the Court's size? This amendment would make that extremely difficult.