Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: The Congressional Review of Executive and Judicial Actions Amendment

Section 1. [Finding and Purpose]
The powers of the President and the rulings of the Supreme Court are vested by the People and must be exercised consistent with the public good. When such actions create a profound appearance of impropriety, corrupt motivation, or demonstrate a clear departure from constitutional principles, they undermine public trust. This Amendment establishes a necessary and final check to preserve the integrity of the Republic.

Section 2. [Nullification Power]
A presidential action, including the granting of a pardon or reprieve, or a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, may be nullified and have no legal force or effect if, within ninety days of its issuance, it is voided by either:
(a) A vote of 60% of all sitting Article III federal judges, or
(b) A vote of three-fourths of the sitting state Governors.

Section 3. [Process of Challenge]
The processes under Section 2 shall be initiated as follows:
(a) Judicial Review: Upon a petition of one-third of the members of the House of Representatives or the Senate, the Chief Justice of the United States shall, within seven days, convene a roll-call vote of all Article III federal judges. Failure to call a vote is an automatic resignation of the Chief Justice.
(b) Federalist Review: Upon a petition of one-fourth of the state legislatures, the Chair of the National Governors Association shall, within seven days, convene a roll-call vote of all sitting Governors. Failure to call a vote is an automatic resignation of the Chair of the National Governors Association.

The votes shall be recorded, made public, and shall require only a majority of 60% of judges or three-fourths of Governors, as stipulated in Section 2, to nullify the action in question.

Section 4. [Limitations]
This power of nullification shall not be used:
(a) To negate a veto or the passage of legislation by Congress.
(b) To alter the specific textual requirements or procedures for amending the Constitution.
(c) On any action or ruling more than ninety days after its issuance.

Section 5. [Enforcement]
Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation to ensure the security, transparency, and efficiency of the voting processes defined herein.

Analysis and Justification of the Proposal

1. The Revolutionary Nature:
This amendment creates a "fourth branch" of government in practice—a "Council of Review" composed of existing officials. It fundamentally shifts the U.S. from a pure tripartite system to one with a fused, supermajoritarian check.  This new power is a veto of the executive and judicial branches, but will have no power over the legislature. 

2. Strengths of the Design:

• Direct Accountability: It provides a direct, swift path to correct perceived gross abuses without relying on the slow, politically fraught processes of impeachment or subsequent litigation.

• Federalism: It powerfully re-engages state executives (Governors) as a direct check on federal power, a principle central to the original constitutional design but that has waned over time.

• Redundancy: The dual-track system (Judges OR Governors) ensures that if one body is paralyzed by partisanship or fear, the other can act. It makes the system highly resilient.

• High Bar for Action: The supermajority requirement for Governors (3/4) is an extremely high bar, ensuring this is a tool for true national crises, not political squabbles.

3. Major Implications and Potential Criticisms:

• End of Finality: The Supreme Court is no longer the "final" say on constitutional matters. A supermajority of Governors could, in theory, overturn a ruling like Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education. This is the most dramatic shift the amendment would cause.

• Politicization of the Judiciary in the Roberts court:  has destroyed the myth of judicial impartiality and turning state executives into permanent federal referees.  This tool is to be used to prevent a further descent into a fascist state. 

• Instability: It could lead to legislative and policy whiplash. A president's executive order or a Supreme Court ruling could be nullified months after it was implemented, creating legal chaos.

• Logistical Feasibility: While you specified a simple roll-call vote, opponents would argue that complex issues require briefing and deliberation, not a snap judgment.

The Path Forward

This requires a Constitutional Amendment under Article V. The political strategy to achieve this would be monumental:

1. Build a Cross-Partisan Coalition: The argument must be framed as "returning power to the states and the people," appealing to conservatives, and "preventing tyranny and corruption," appealing to progressives.

2. Propose in Congress: A movement would need to lobby to get the amendment proposed by a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate.

3. Ratification Campaign: A massive, state-by-state campaign would be needed to secure ratification in 38 state legislatures. This would be the battle of a generation.

In conclusion, your proposal is not a minor tweak but a fundamental re-architecting of the U.S. government. It is a direct response to the perceived failures of the current system to hold its most powerful branches accountable. Whether one sees it as a necessary safeguard or a dangerous destabilization depends entirely on their faith in the existing institutions.