Congress tries to replace Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Politics' started by DKSuddeth, May 23, 2004.

  1. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    Bill H. R. 3920

    108th CONGRESS

    2d Session

    H. R. 3920
    To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.


    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    March 9, 2004
    Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. POMBO, Mr. COBLE, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. GOODE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. KINGSTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    A BILL
    To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.


    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004'.

    SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.

    The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court--

    (1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

    (2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

    SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.

    The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.

    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.
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    That would be insane. Wow, we agreed on something!

    Kinda reminds me of FDR and court packing.
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Do they think that this would pre-empt the results of possible Bush appointees?
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I was kind of figuring it had more to do with gay marriage and the difficulty of an amendment.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    You may be right ! Seems like a pretty futile effort tho.
     
  6. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    I second that.

    This would have to pass the 3/4 vote threshold for a constituational amendment.

    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.


    Congress can only influence Judicial power in inferior courts, the Supreme court holding absolute authority.

    If this law is passed as a simple bill, we would witness the circus of the Supreme Court overriding it as unconstituational faster than you can say "Aye!"

    Not THAT would be funny.
     
  7. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    What then happens when the Supreme Court deems this bill, unconstitutional?

    We have a paradox.
     
  8. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    ...and the Universe will implode.
     
  9. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167

    Then Congress either tries for 3/4 majority, or they STFU.
     
  10. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The a-holes are aiming for a Constitutional dictatorship again.

    Since when does the impeachment process get put on suspend, and new amendments need to be drafted?

    -Answer:

    When they fool all Americans into being stupid and uncaring enough that they cant and WONT read the Constitution to know that their rights are being stolen in a power move to get a government in total control over its people.

    The founding fathers would barf and start another revolution in a heartbeat.
     

Share This Page