Congress tries to replace Supreme Court

[DKSuddeth]

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.

 

[Annie]

That would be insane. Wow, we agreed on something!

Kinda reminds me of FDR and court packing.

 

[dilloduck]

Do they think that this would pre-empt the results of possible Bush appointees?

 

[Annie]

I was kind of figuring it had more to do with gay marriage and the difficulty of an amendment.

 

[dilloduck]

You may be right ! Seems like a pretty futile effort tho.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by dilloduck
You may be right ! Seems like a pretty futile effort tho.

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.

 

[insein]

What then happens when the Supreme Court deems this bill, unconstitutional?

We have a paradox.

 

[Zhukov]

...and the Universe will implode.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by insein
What then happens when the Supreme Court deems this bill, unconstitutional?

We have a paradox.

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

 

[NewGuy]

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.

 

[acludem]

This bill is blatantly unconstitutional. It's an absolute obliteration of the separation of powers. There is already a provision in the Constitution for overturning Supreme Court decisions - it's called a Constitutional amendment.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
This bill is blatantly unconstitutional. It's an absolute obliteration of the separation of powers. There is already a provision in the Constitution for overturning Supreme Court decisions - it's called a Constitutional amendment.

acludem

Boy are YOU backwards.....there is NO PROVISION in the Constitution or its original 10 amendments providing such a thing. If so, prove it. We have been this route before, and you lost.

The only provision is impeachment.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Boy are YOU backwards.....there is NO PROVISION in the Constitution or its original 10 amendments providing such a thing. If so, prove it. We have been this route before, and you lost.

The only provision is impeachment.

Acludem is correct. Read back and you'll find my 3/4 reference to such amendments.

Here is the text:


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlev.html


Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

[DKSuddeth]

It's just another cog in the vast right wing conspiracy. How often have we heard about 'judicial activism' in the last few years?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Comrade
Acludem is correct. Read back and you'll find my 3/4 reference to such amendments.

Here is the text:


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlev.html


Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

This has nothing to do with overturning supreme court decisions, but is a mechanism for amending the Constitution. He was stating that the supreme court HAS the authority equal to and surpassing the Constitution to be allowed to manipulate or decipher meaning from it and that the only way to stop it is a new amendment. THAT is the issue he proposes. That is what I was adressing. The answer I have stated is that there is no provision in the Constitution providing a process allowing such capacity to the supreme court and that there is no stipulation that the Constitution must follow any other process to defend its self against such things with anything other than an impeachment.

Since the idea you site is for creation, and not repealing of amendments, my point still stands.

 

[JohnGalt]

Power-hungry politicians who have lost sight of the people...
People who are too dumb to know their rights...
A foolproof check/balance system that has suddenly been turned into a joke (not a very funny one)...

no wonder the world is going to hell

 

[acludem]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, New Guy. Constitutional amendments were designed as a mechanism for overturning Supreme Court decisions. It's a check on the power of the judicial branch. It's even been done before - that's why there's an amendment allowing for an income tax. That's why the amendment banning slavery had to be passed. By your reasoning the judicial branch would have absolute power.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
Wrong, wrong, wrong, New Guy. Constitutional amendments were designed as a mechanism for overturning Supreme Court decisions.

How dumb can you be?

Amending a document which gives power distribution to branches and citizens AND CLAIMES TO BE THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN THE LAND is NOT subject to the lower level threat of a court.

It's a check on the power of the judicial branch.

Gee. Point to where your point is worded.

It's even been done before - that's why there's an amendment allowing for an income tax.

Hey, guess what? Getting a BJ in the oval office is legal too. Even though it is against the law for a married person to have any sort of adulterous relationship in DC, it is legal anyway 'casue Billy did it.

You make me want to barf.

It is thinking like that that causes our problems in the first place.

That's why the amendment banning slavery had to be passed. By your reasoning the judicial branch would have absolute power.

What the crap are you talking about? Impeachment, juries, and the everpopular right to bear arms are the most powerful defenses we have against absolute power in any one branch. People like you want it taken away (which has been done effectively) so they can spew the lies you just told to school students for perpetuating subversion of our nation.

You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. We now see which side you are on.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by NewGuy
This has nothing to do with overturning supreme court decisions, but is a mechanism for amending the Constitution. He was stating that the supreme court HAS the authority equal to and surpassing the Constitution to be allowed to manipulate or decipher meaning from it and that the only way to stop it is a new amendment. THAT is the issue he proposes. That is what I was adressing. The answer I have stated is that there is no provision in the Constitution providing a process allowing such capacity to the supreme court and that there is no stipulation that the Constitution must follow any other process to defend its self against such things with anything other than an impeachment.

Since the idea you site is for creation, and not repealing of amendments, my point still stands.

NewGuy,

I'm not sure if we're all on same page.

I don't think anyone deserves to be called "dumb" regardless.

Impeachment is not relevent at all. A check on executive power exclusive to Congress, has nothing to do with this thread.

We have one document to work from, the constitution.

Where do you disagree?

Does the Supreme Court authority override the Constitution?
--- No, it interprets law with respect to it.

Does the Constitution give the Supreme Court authority to overrule law which it interpretes as unconstitutional?
--- Absolutely.

Does the Constitution allow for Congress to change law?
--- Absolutely.

Can Congress amend (as opposed to append) the Constitution itself?
--- YES, per Article V.

Does Article V. restrict the method of change after 1808?
--- YES, equal sufferage in the Senate must apply.

Can even Article V. be amended?
--- OF COURSE.

Doesn't this mean the Supreme Court and the Executive Office face total annihilation from a Congressional Amendment?
--- I'm afraid so.

Does a 3/4 majority vote to do so serve to adequately reign in any potential power grab by Congress?
--- According to the founders, perhaps.

Couldn't this really be abused to establish a dictatorship of the Legislative Branch?
--- Perhaps, perhaps not. See the 2nd amendment.

In other words, the constitution is a living document.

The authority of the Supreme Court as stipulated in the Constitution, itself is subject to constitution amendment.

Article V grants this right to Congress without exception, after 1808, and if you have contradictory evidence please quote the text of the Constitution.

I still stand behind the above statements as my understanding of Constitutional law. Again, please quote text from the law, where you believe my facts to be in error.