Congress; urge to call convention of the states under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to propose amendments limited to requiring the U.S. Supreme Court be composed of 9 justices.
If HC36 were to progress successfully through the state applications, it could serve as a significant mechanism for influencing the judiciary’s structure, impacting federal composition through an amendment process. This could contribute to broader discussions about the role of the judiciary in democratic governance, specifically reflecting on ongoing debates about judicial activism and conservatism in the Supreme Court. Should enough states converge on this application, it might prompt a reevaluation of how justices are selected or retained, as well as potentially impacting the judicial philosophy embraced by the courts.
House Concurrent Resolution 36 (HC36) advocates for a convention of states to propose a constitutional amendment affirming that the U.S. Supreme Court should be composed of nine justices. This resolution is rooted in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that if two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for it, Congress must call for such a convention. The Mississippi Legislature believes that specifying the number of justices is a necessary measure, responding to evolving discussions about court composition during politically contentious times. The resolution indicates a desire to clarify and solidify the structure of the judiciary at a federal level.
The committee discussions surrounding HC36 addressed various viewpoints regarding state influence over the federal judiciary. Proponents argue that securing a fixed number of justices serves to protect the integrity and consistency of the Supreme Court, believing that changes in the composition could undermine judicial independence. Conversely, opponents raise concerns that such a measure might foster a judicial system less adaptable to necessary reforms and hinder responses to future societal needs. This dichotomy reflects ongoing tensions between state control versus federal governance in judicial matters, making the resolution a focal point for debate on states' roles in shaping national law.