Congress has Power Over the Judicial Branch

[longknife]

Judges at all levels have become more political in their findings for several decades. We hear the gnashing of teeth but nobody points out that the Constitution gives Congress full power over the Judicial Branch in many ways. Here are some clear thoughts on what Congress can do to change the direction of the Judicial Branch:

1 Limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court per Article III, Section2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Even the first Chief Justice, John Marshall, acknowledged that the court has no jurisdiction other than what Congress grants it (except for a few spheres of original jurisdiction per Article III).

2 Abolish or severely curtail judicial review for the lower courts as the Congress created and can break, divide, or regulate them at will. Per Article 1, Section 8 and the judicial vesting clause of Article III, Section1, the legislative branch has full authority over the creation of all courts below the Supreme Court.

3 Defund enforcement of unconstitutional court decisions. As noted above in Federalist 78, Hamilton was unconcerned that the Courts would become all-powerful as they had no means of enforcing their decisions. Therefore, the executive branch could simply refuse to enforce their edicts and the Congress could cut off funding for enforcement in reaction to the court’s absurd behavior.

4 Congress can redraw and change the boundaries of the circuit courts or even eliminate them entirely if they care to and create new ones with new judges.

Read much more @ Articles: President Trump and the Runaway Judiciary: The Founders Have Provided the Remedy

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear longknife
I'd start by educating the people that neither Congress nor Courts
were ever designed to pontificate and mandate beliefs for the public.

Once we get that idea out of our heads that govt is authorized to act as a dictator,
we might reclaim authority as residing with the people, based on "consent of the governed"
as the spirit of laws as social contracts.

If people or parties CHOOSE to form a club and have elected leaders/reps "dictate" for them, that's called a RELIGION. with parties we should recognize these as POLITICAL RELIGIONS. These should remain a FREE CHOICE just like religious denominations, and stop abusing these groups to impose their BELIEFS on the nation through govt!

Just like some Muslims choose to operate independently while others CHOOSE to live
under mandates by govt, people should have a CHOICE.

I'd say let's start by educating people (including our own Congress and Court officials)
what is a Political BELIEF that people should have a choice in, and should not be forced by govt.

Can we start the conservation there?
On what is Free Exercise of Religion, what constitutes a political belief, religion or creed.
And not mix this with govt functions unless people AGREE to those processes and principles.

If we AGREE and CONSENT, yes, that's public policy and principles.
But the minute we divorce in our beliefs, we have to recognize that as a private choice
and respect those beliefs and differences equally as faith based choices outside of govt.

 

[yiostheoy]

Judges at all levels have become more political in their findings for several decades. We hear the gnashing of teeth but nobody points out that the Constitution gives Congress full power over the Judicial Branch in many ways. Here are some clear thoughts on what Congress can do to change the direction of the Judicial Branch:

1 Limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court per Article III, Section2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Even the first Chief Justice, John Marshall, acknowledged that the court has no jurisdiction other than what Congress grants it (except for a few spheres of original jurisdiction per Article III).

2 Abolish or severely curtail judicial review for the lower courts as the Congress created and can break, divide, or regulate them at will. Per Article 1, Section 8 and the judicial vesting clause of Article III, Section1, the legislative branch has full authority over the creation of all courts below the Supreme Court.

3 Defund enforcement of unconstitutional court decisions. As noted above in Federalist 78, Hamilton was unconcerned that the Courts would become all-powerful as they had no means of enforcing their decisions. Therefore, the executive branch could simply refuse to enforce their edicts and the Congress could cut off funding for enforcement in reaction to the court’s absurd behavior.

4 Congress can redraw and change the boundaries of the circuit courts or even eliminate them entirely if they care to and create new ones with new judges.

Read much more @ Articles: President Trump and the Runaway Judiciary: The Founders Have Provided the Remedy

These suggestions are fascist if not downright Nazi.

It will always come down to appointments, ratifications, and if necessary then impeachments.

Your list is ludicrous, especially the last item.

 

[yiostheoy]

Dear longknife
I'd start by educating the people that neither Congress nor Courts
were ever designed to pontificate and mandate beliefs for the public.

Once we get that idea out of our heads that govt is authorized to act as a dictator,
we might reclaim authority as residing with the people, based on "consent of the governed"
as the spirit of laws as social contracts.

If people or parties CHOOSE to form a club and have elected leaders/reps "dictate" for them, that's called a RELIGION. with parties we should recognize these as POLITICAL RELIGIONS. These should remain a FREE CHOICE just like religious denominations, and stop abusing these groups to impose their BELIEFS on the nation through govt!

Just like some Muslims choose to operate independently while others CHOOSE to live
under mandates by govt, people should have a CHOICE.

I'd say let's start by educating people (including our own Congress and Court officials)
what is a Political BELIEF that people should have a choice in, and should not be forced by govt.

Can we start the conservation there?
On what is Free Exercise of Religion, what constitutes a political belief, religion or creed.
And not mix this with govt functions unless people AGREE to those processes and principles.

If we AGREE and CONSENT, yes, that's public policy and principles.
But the minute we divorce in our beliefs, we have to recognize that as a private choice
and respect those beliefs and differences equally as faith based choices outside of govt.

This comment is even more childish and foolish than the first one in the thread.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear longknife
I'd start by educating the people that neither Congress nor Courts
were ever designed to pontificate and mandate beliefs for the public.

Once we get that idea out of our heads that govt is authorized to act as a dictator,
we might reclaim authority as residing with the people, based on "consent of the governed"
as the spirit of laws as social contracts.

If people or parties CHOOSE to form a club and have elected leaders/reps "dictate" for them, that's called a RELIGION. with parties we should recognize these as POLITICAL RELIGIONS. These should remain a FREE CHOICE just like religious denominations, and stop abusing these groups to impose their BELIEFS on the nation through govt!

Just like some Muslims choose to operate independently while others CHOOSE to live
under mandates by govt, people should have a CHOICE.

I'd say let's start by educating people (including our own Congress and Court officials)
what is a Political BELIEF that people should have a choice in, and should not be forced by govt.

Can we start the conservation there?
On what is Free Exercise of Religion, what constitutes a political belief, religion or creed.
And not mix this with govt functions unless people AGREE to those processes and principles.

If we AGREE and CONSENT, yes, that's public policy and principles.
But the minute we divorce in our beliefs, we have to recognize that as a private choice
and respect those beliefs and differences equally as faith based choices outside of govt.

This comment is even more childish and foolish than the first one in the thread.

yiostheoy
the PEOPLE and common sense and reason
are the FINAL check on govt. We have the power
to reform govt so that it represents our beliefs and protects our interests.

Consent of the governed is the basis of law and all civil contracts.

If we give up our power as human beings to exercise our conscience, democratic process,
and political will, we deserve the mess that govt becomes if we let it run amok!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

In MvM, This Was Obiter Dictum and Therefore Non-Binding

One idea is that if SCROTUS nullifies a law, it is not cancelled but instead is voted on by a national referendum. Judicial review is a ruling-class tool to overrule what the government has been forced to enact because of popular will.

So it is a weapon against the ruled. "Overrule" in the case of the SCROTUS Star Chamber should be taken in the sense of "rule too much."

 

[longknife]

Judges at all levels have become more political in their findings for several decades. We hear the gnashing of teeth but nobody points out that the Constitution gives Congress full power over the Judicial Branch in many ways. Here are some clear thoughts on what Congress can do to change the direction of the Judicial Branch:

1 Limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court per Article III, Section2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Even the first Chief Justice, John Marshall, acknowledged that the court has no jurisdiction other than what Congress grants it (except for a few spheres of original jurisdiction per Article III).

2 Abolish or severely curtail judicial review for the lower courts as the Congress created and can break, divide, or regulate them at will. Per Article 1, Section 8 and the judicial vesting clause of Article III, Section1, the legislative branch has full authority over the creation of all courts below the Supreme Court.

3 Defund enforcement of unconstitutional court decisions. As noted above in Federalist 78, Hamilton was unconcerned that the Courts would become all-powerful as they had no means of enforcing their decisions. Therefore, the executive branch could simply refuse to enforce their edicts and the Congress could cut off funding for enforcement in reaction to the court’s absurd behavior.

4 Congress can redraw and change the boundaries of the circuit courts or even eliminate them entirely if they care to and create new ones with new judges.

Read much more @ Articles: President Trump and the Runaway Judiciary: The Founders Have Provided the Remedy

These suggestions are fascist if not downright Nazi.

It will always come down to appointments, ratifications, and if necessary then impeachments.

Your list is ludicrous, especially the last item.

Care to explain?