Dang, check this bill out guys.
H. R. 3920
Dunno if tampering with "Seperation of Powers" is a good idea.
Any thoughts?
H. R. 3920
Dunno if tampering with "Seperation of Powers" is a good idea.
Any thoughts?
New Bill to allow Congress to overrule judgements of the Supreme Court
- Thread starter Braxus
- Start date
SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.
This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.
--------------
Anyone have any idea if this article III section 2 is new or they had this power all along and just never put into Law to use it before???
I'm mixed on this. Both Congress and Judges have gone against the "Will" of the people.
We need an "override" for the people when both of these entities ignore the people.
Well one arguement is that the courts exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The majority, theoretically, has its voice expressed through Congress and if the majority can now overrule the only recourse of the minority...
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Tell Congressman Lewis how you feel:
http://www.house.gov/ronlewis/contact.htm
http://www.house.gov/ronlewis/surveyfiles/2003_constituent_survey.htm
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Tell Congressman Lewis how you feel:
http://www.house.gov/ronlewis/contact.htm
http://www.house.gov/ronlewis/surveyfiles/2003_constituent_survey.htm
Hmm, what happens if this is passed, then the supreme court finds it unconstitutional? Chicken/Egg?
More info on the bill:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ky02_lewis/Activism.html
Accountability for Judicial Activism Act Introduced in House
Rep. Lewis introduces landmark legislation to override SCOTUS decisions
WASHINGTON, D.C.? March 9, 2004 ? U.S. Representative Ron Lewis (R-KY) today introduced The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act (H.R. 3920), legislation that would allow Congress, by a 2/3rds vote in each house, to override certain future decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill was drafted in an effort to redress recent cases of activist judicial rulings.
?America?s judicial branch has become increasingly overreaching and disconnected from the values of everyday Americans,? said Lewis. ?The recent actions taken by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere are demonstrative of a single branch of government taking upon itself the singular ability to legislate. These actions usurp the will of the governed by allowing a select few to conclusively rule on issues that are radically reshaping our nation?s traditions.?
Lewis? proposed legislation, designed to preserve equal dignity among branches of government, would only be applicable to rulings concerning the constitutionality of an Act of Congress following passage. Lewis, a strong supporter of numerous legislative measures aimed to define marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman, believes a more comprehensive solution is necessary to address the broader issue of activist courts; a concern he believes has troubling implications beyond just the issue of marriage.
?The framers of the Constitution were advocates of serious debate who believed that the deliberation of the political process should always be open to the people. As the courts continue to expand their power of judicial review, I believe Congress, as the people?s branch of representative government, should take steps to equally affirm our authority to interpret constitutional issues.?
The right of judicial review is a practice with origins from the bench itself, established by the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, and is not expressly provided for in the Constitution. Many argue that the exercise of such broad judicial authority, expanded over time and by political tradition, has a growing adverse affect on co-equal branches of government.
?As judicial power expands, Congressional power contracts,? said Lewis. ?This is especially true when the power to interpret the Constitution rests in the hands of activist judges anxious to find the latest ?right? hiding between the lines of our founding document.?
The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act is gaining early support from numerous Member of Congress including eleven original co-sponsors. Lewis hopes his legislation will encourage serious bipartisan debate on the growing imbalance of constitutional authority between legislative and judicial branches of government.
Soo...Congress knows better than the highest judges of the land?
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ky02_lewis/Activism.html
Accountability for Judicial Activism Act Introduced in House
Rep. Lewis introduces landmark legislation to override SCOTUS decisions
WASHINGTON, D.C.? March 9, 2004 ? U.S. Representative Ron Lewis (R-KY) today introduced The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act (H.R. 3920), legislation that would allow Congress, by a 2/3rds vote in each house, to override certain future decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill was drafted in an effort to redress recent cases of activist judicial rulings.
?America?s judicial branch has become increasingly overreaching and disconnected from the values of everyday Americans,? said Lewis. ?The recent actions taken by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere are demonstrative of a single branch of government taking upon itself the singular ability to legislate. These actions usurp the will of the governed by allowing a select few to conclusively rule on issues that are radically reshaping our nation?s traditions.?
Lewis? proposed legislation, designed to preserve equal dignity among branches of government, would only be applicable to rulings concerning the constitutionality of an Act of Congress following passage. Lewis, a strong supporter of numerous legislative measures aimed to define marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman, believes a more comprehensive solution is necessary to address the broader issue of activist courts; a concern he believes has troubling implications beyond just the issue of marriage.
?The framers of the Constitution were advocates of serious debate who believed that the deliberation of the political process should always be open to the people. As the courts continue to expand their power of judicial review, I believe Congress, as the people?s branch of representative government, should take steps to equally affirm our authority to interpret constitutional issues.?
The right of judicial review is a practice with origins from the bench itself, established by the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, and is not expressly provided for in the Constitution. Many argue that the exercise of such broad judicial authority, expanded over time and by political tradition, has a growing adverse affect on co-equal branches of government.
?As judicial power expands, Congressional power contracts,? said Lewis. ?This is especially true when the power to interpret the Constitution rests in the hands of activist judges anxious to find the latest ?right? hiding between the lines of our founding document.?
The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act is gaining early support from numerous Member of Congress including eleven original co-sponsors. Lewis hopes his legislation will encourage serious bipartisan debate on the growing imbalance of constitutional authority between legislative and judicial branches of government.
Soo...Congress knows better than the highest judges of the land?
Maybe congress should better protect its power by approving activists judges judges.
This bill is definatly not needed.
This bill is definatly not needed.
This is similar to the Constitution restitution act of 2004, and based on the same interpretation of the constitution. Basically, they're trying to amend the Constitution w/o actually doing so, an end-run of sorts.
The whole problem gets pretty gnarly when you consider the likely scenarios- SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, Congress and the Executive claim they don't have the authority to do so, because the law they ruled unconstitutional says the court doesn't have the authority. Catch-22, leading to a whole new kind of governmental crisis.
They're both pretty scary, particularly the constitution restoration act, brought to you by the Christian reconstructionists, a truly scary group of rather powerful folks in the religious right. Their goal is to scrap the Constitution, institute a theocracy, then gear up for the final battle of armageddon...
I'm not kidding- google it up, see who Dubya's friends really are, and what they're about...
The whole problem gets pretty gnarly when you consider the likely scenarios- SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, Congress and the Executive claim they don't have the authority to do so, because the law they ruled unconstitutional says the court doesn't have the authority. Catch-22, leading to a whole new kind of governmental crisis.
They're both pretty scary, particularly the constitution restoration act, brought to you by the Christian reconstructionists, a truly scary group of rather powerful folks in the religious right. Their goal is to scrap the Constitution, institute a theocracy, then gear up for the final battle of armageddon...
I'm not kidding- google it up, see who Dubya's friends really are, and what they're about...
Daschele used the provision to cut timber in S.D. Passed a bill and noted it "Not subject to Judicial Review". Perfectly legal.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/fundiewords.htm
:Q :Q :Q
whoa...those people are insane
That's pretty much what I see too. That Article says nothing abut upsurping the Powers of the Supreme Court.
They have pretty much thorwn the Constitution out. The United States Of America no longer exists.
Edit: BTW, Thank You Conjur for the Article III post.
We'll need you to write a New Constitution after the Revolution.
In Great Britain, Paliament is the final arbirter of what's constitutional and what's not, and they don't seem to be living in a despot state to me. So I think the U.S. would survive also. Also, the bill calls for a 2/3 supermajority in both houses in order to override SCOTUS (which is nearly the amount needed approve a Constitutional amendment to be sent to the states to ratify), so that's a pretty high threshhold to meet.
That being said, whether the bill is a good idea or not, i leave to others to argue.
we need a constitutional amendment that allows the congress to overrule any federal Court decision w/ a 2/3rds majority vote.
we need to keep from being forced into a tyranny from the bench, these unelected life-long appointees could, if they wanted, create all sorts of legislation from homosexual marriage, to a homosexual concentration camp w/ nothing the American people could do but wait the 7ish years to get a constitutional amendment passed.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Judges cannot legislate. They merely interpret existing laws.
If the Supreme Court is made obselete, wherefore goes our system of checks and balances?
constitutional is what the American people allow it to be;
in the end the pres has the military the congress has the purse-strings;
the supreme Court has.. um... respect? yea, respect.
problem is that they DO legislate;
I'm saying that the system of balances isn't working now because the congress doesn't have enough power over the judiciary to keep them from going outside the bounds of the constitution.
Looks like the 2nd admendmet is going to be used. The Demos never did anything this stupid when they controlled both houses and the president. Time to bring all of those people supporting this bill back home.
Uh, no they don't. Only legislatures do. Courts only interpret, and if the laws are not written carefully enough, then loopholes exist. Then, if people take advantage of those loopholes, then that's the fault of lawmakers, not those that interpret the law.
Congress should NOT have power over ANY other branch of the government, PERIOD. If you think so, then you should have flunked American Government 101. It's all about the checks and balances.
It's really very simple: Lawmakers can make any law and put it on the books, and can make it withstand constitutionality arguments by making an amendment to the Constitution.
The problem is, Congress (or state legislatures) don't want to do the job they were elected to do. Extreme partisanship had caused legislative deadlocks, with the end result of both the Executive and Judical branch not having the checks and balances that should normally be there.
So, no we don't need a new law. We already have all the law and documentation we need - it's called the United States Constitution.
how ignorant.
the BALANCE and CHECK on the judicial branch is that the congress can impeach them and confirms them from presidential appoint meant; THAT is what the checks and balances is all about.
The further problem is that the judiciary has in it's past and continues to write legislation; in Texas state-redistricting lines are often written by our judges.. luckily about 1/2 of them are elected.
The SC doesn't have time to check against all the wrong-rulings of lower courts, as such the lower courts often unconstitutionally legislate from the bench;
and now we need a law that confirms the constitution as it's not being followed and the judiciary is ruling contrary to the will of the people in law creation.
although for this to stand it'll have to be a constitutional amendment.
Examples?
Last time I checked, LMK, one of the ideas of our nation is that the minority would not be ruled by the majority. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
i agree as far as it keeps the minority from ruling over the majority, thus the 2/3rds majority in both houses to get an over-turn.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter