• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Unlucky

member
Joined
Mar 18, 2004
Messages
204
Location
Where I haven't won "life's lottery" yet.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Boortz20040319.shtml



Messing with the Constitution
Neal Boortz

March 19, 2004

There is a move a foot in the Congress to essentially change the way the United States Constitution is amended. Eleven Republican congressmen have decided that the old system of congressional passage coupled with state ratification is just too cumbersome for this enlightened age. Their idea? To simply allow the House and Senate to amend our Constitution with a simple two-thirds majority vote.

We’ll cover the methodology in a moment; first the motivation. These 11 stalwart defenders of our constitution, led by Representative Ron Lewis (R-KY) have decided that they’ve had it up to just about here (gesturing around my eyebrows) with what they call judicial activism. They are particularly concerned over the prospects of legal gay marriage. I think it would also be safe to say that they are less than thrilled over the prospect of the phrase “under God†being taken out of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Fair enough. The Supreme Court has been a bit feisty in the last few decades. Some think they’ve taken Al Gores “The Constitution should be a living, breathing document†routine a bit far. In the mid-1990s the court breathed the idea into our body of Constitutional law that local governments could take your home away from you and transfer it to some heavy campaign contributors who promise to bulldoze the house you were born and raised in and replace it with a cluster-mansion that will pay more in property taxes. Somehow I missed that part of the Constitution when I was studying law.

I do remember seeing something in the Constitution about amendments though. Perhaps Representative Lewis has heard of it. It seems the people of this country, acting through their federal and local elected officials, can amend the Constitution if they feel that the courts have gone just a bit too far in their activist roles.

Well, here’s what Lewis and his 11 Republican cohorts have dreamed up. Just last week they introduced H.R. 3920 which they call the “Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004. This legislation would allow the congress to overturn any Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of an act of Congress by a two-thirds majority vote. Simply put, H.R. 3920 would allow the Congress of the United States to amend our Constitution by a two-third vote of both houses. No involvement from the Executive branch, and no vetting through the states and the people. Just pass a law, wait for the Supremes to declare it unconstitutional, and then amend the Constitution with your two-thirds vote.

This might seem like a wonderful idea to Republicans at a time when they control both houses. But … consider this scenario. Let’s say the people of the United States suddenly succumb to a nationwide epidemic of mad voter disease and place the Democrats in full and complete control of both houses. The Democrats immediately pass a law making it a felony for any private citizen in the United States to own a firearm. Since government is the only entity in our system entitled to use force to accomplish its goals, the Democrats reason that government should be the only entity with the means to exert force. Along comes the Supreme Court and, in a rare exercise of reasonable Constitutional interpretation, declares the law to be at variance with the dictates of the Second Amendment. The Democrats merely produce their two-third votes in the Senate and the House and, voila, the Constitution is amended!

Consider another scenario: The entire congress, mindful of its constant struggle for self-preservation, passes a law stating that all congressional and Senatorial terms shall be for life. As soon as the court declares this absurdity to be unconstitutional the House and Senate votes almost unanimously to overrule the Supreme Court … and once again the Constitution is amended.

H.R. 3920 is, of course, going absolutely nowhere. It’s the Dennis Kucinich of legislation. A somewhat nutty one percent might consider taking this tramp to dinner, but nobody’s going to pick up the check. These Republicans are merely staking out some election-year territory in which they can claim to be the saviors of the American family and all that good and right with the world.

The outrage here is that eleven Republican members of the Congress of the United States have so little regard and respect for our Constitution that they would actually put their names on this insult. You would normally expect this depraved behavior from Democrats or the local mob. The offense, though, is so grave the guilty parties must be identified. See if one of these names is familiar to you. We have Lewis of Kentucky, Howard of North Carolina, DeMint of South Carolina, Kingston and Collins of Georgia, Everett of Alabama, Dolittle and Pombo of California, Franks of Arizona, Hefley of Colorado, Goode of Virginia and Pitts of Pennsylvania.

During this election year, when we have the likes of John Kerry plotting to surrender the sovereignty of the United States to the machinations of the United Nations, our Constitution needs every friend it can get. Lewis’s eleven don’t fit the bill.



Neal Boortz is a lawyer and nationally syndicated radio talk show host.
 
As I read that I couldnt help but think about EFAD and the actions taken therein. No way its gonna pass. But if pigs did fly, things would get interesting.
 
It is a shot across the bow of judicial activism.

The solution, while it may sound nice if you are fed up with a judiciary stepping out of bounds (who isn't?), is far worse than the problem it is intended to solve. I really think this kind of legislation, like gun control, will be broached constantly, lest we drop our guard.
 
There are idiot Repubs

everywhere. We have 'em here in God's Country, NH even. One of our local state reps recently published two rants in the local paper opposing Vt-style carry and a proposed amendment to reaffirm that legislatures, NOT JUDGES, have the authority to levy taxes.

Ignorance of the Constitution is no excuse.
 
"[O]nly impeachment will teach the rogue judiciary that its place is below, not above, state and Federal constitutions." - Joseph Sobran

So the question is, who impeaches and how does it work?
 
Don't stand there, do something!

So some of our more unsophisticated reps take action. Never mind it is unconsitutional, just as unconstitutional as current judicial overreach.

The key to this problem is to remember only SCOTUS is decreed by the consitution. All other courts are creatures of the legislature. Article III of the constitution is a good place to start.

Article III, Section 2, paragraph 4 seems to indicate congress can place some topics off limits to court interferance.

More of the same tomfoolery found in H.R. 3920 is coming. At least the debate has started.
 
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) - I hope that every one of 'em gets tossed out the door next time they're up for election.

Unreal...
 
IMHO HR 3920 has exactly ZERO chance of becoming law but just for fun and the sake of argument let's assume it does.

In the event I believe that the US Government would cease to exist. SCOTUS at the first opportunity would declare the law unconstitutional which it clearly is. The Houses of Congress would then invoke and by a 2/3 majority declare the SCOTUS ruling void. You've got a catch-22 situation here that is essentially irreconcilable since Congress would be using an unconstitutional law to void a SCOTUS ruling.

What happens next?
Does SCOTUS as part of the Justice Department order the FBI to arrest members of Congress for contempt of court (can they do that)? Would the FBI comply? SCOTUS has to do something or it essentially becomes irrelevant.

What does the Executive branch do while the Legislative and Justice branches duke it out? What if Congress decides it wants all the pie and passes a law putting all of the Executive branch under the legislative branch and makes the President a figurehead or even eliminates the office?

With a law like HR3920 on the books - well - the swelled heads in Congress these days are capable of anything.

Oh the possibilities...
 
Judicial activisim is a monster of Congress' own making and now they're finally seeing the results of their own work. If federal judges were confirmed based on their real qualifications of safeguarding freedom, rather than a series litmous tests of everyone's various agendas, then there wouldn't be a problem.:banghead:
Congress dosen't need to ammend the constitution to correct their f-up. They need to change the partisan standards they use to confirm judicial appointees. To me, safeguarding the Constitution should be bi-partisan and desolve party lines.
 
Does SCOTUS as part of the Justice Department order the FBI to arrest members of Congress for contempt of court (can they do that)?

DOJ's Executive branch, so that wouldn't work.

But those are some interesting thoughts. Talk about gridlock... :D
 
Yes sir just wait & see what happens if the dems ever get back into a majority in the house & senate. Holy sh_t you would here the screams from the republicans when the dems get rid of that pesky 2nd ammendment. Morons :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :cuss:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top