Let the tyranny begin

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SmarterThanYou, Apr 6, 2005.

  1. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    This is complete and total bullshit.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:/


    Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004 (Introduced in House)

    HR 3920 IH


    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. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    2/3 vote. I don't think too many decisions will be overturned.

    I disagree with this Bill in principal and were I in Congress would vote against this as many times as I could.
     
  3. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    As I understand it, Congress is completely within its limits to pass such a bill, concerning the judgments of lower federal courts, but not the USSC.
     
  4. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    not to get too far off base with the topic, but isn't congress' role in the lower courts ONLY jurisdiction and not overturning rulings? Thats why they are the legislature, not the judiciary.
     
  5. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    This is my understanding as well. The Congress is not the judiciary and have no means Constitutionally to overturn any ruling by the High Court. They have a balance in setting Jurisdiction (the reason that their one-use bill was constitutional) and they have a check in that they can Impeach a Judge for High Crimes (any crime committed by a person in Office) and Misdemeanors.
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    I think jurisdiction, depending on one's interpretation, could include the right to overturn decisions. And, considering that the Congress is elected and the judiciary is appointed, I would hardly call that tyranny.

    But I do agree with you that the current bill is a bridge too far.
     
  7. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    It really doesn't matter, the bill was killed last year. Hasn't anybody noticed the date on it?

    March 2004
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    im really starting to dislike that word, interpretation.

    one thing that people seem to either not know, don't remember, or purposefully ignore is that the judiciary, while not elected but appointed, are appointed by OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!!!!! Therefore, should we not be holding our elected reps accountable for the judiciary?
     
  9. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    does that mean its actually dead? or just lounging around waiting for another opportunity?
     
  10. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    Let's see if we can find any stories relating to this and find out if they plan on putting this up for any votes. It is unlikely that they will attempt to bring up the Bill again after it was killed before actually reaching the floor for a vote.
     

Share This Page