OK, lets change the Constitution!

[BowStreetRunner]

Certain members of the House of Representatives are sponsoring this bill:
HR 3920
it would give The Congress the power to override the Supreme Court
now im not to happy with a lot of what the Supreme Court has done, but does this strike anyone else as repugnant to the Constitution?
BSR

 

[Jonesy9]

we don't need the Constitution anymore. The right party is in power and it has outlived it's usefulness.

 

[armoredman]

FDR used the orginal Constitution for toilet paper - we have been under a vastly changed mallable farce ever since.

 

[Jonesy9]

word up Armored mang! now it's our turn bay be!

 

[Waitone]

It is a long ignored component of the constitution that congress does indeed have power over the courts. For what ever reason we've conveniently forgot the judiciary is checked and balanced by congress. The debate will intensify as to how to control a judiciary runamuck. Every boneheaded SCOTUS decision coming down the pike is met with, "Hey, we need a constitutional amendment to . . . ." My response is to say we need to use the freakin' constitution to control the claptrap coming out of the courts.

1>Article III of the constitution details the courts. Only the SCOTUS is a creature of the constitution. All other courts are the creation of congress What congress can give, congress can take away.
2>Congress retains the right of impeachment.
3>Article III, Section 2, Clause 4 seems to indicate congress can instruct the courts in what to keep its hand off.

I'd much rather see a public debate over constitutional means of judicial override than sound and fury over the constitutional amendment de jour.

The founding fathers feared judicial tyranny and that is exactly what we have. Reason for it is because congress found it convenient to hide behind judicial robes. If we did get congress to start slapping hands in the judiciary, a whole series of questions immediately come to mind. If congress tells the courts to keep its hands off the definition of marriage, then the next question is, "So how come you guys didn't act on . . . . . "

I have't read the bill but I do know you'll see a lot more discussion.

 

[Bruce H]

Geez Waitone. what are you trying to do? Dragging the rules out in the middle of a free for all. It is easier to go off screaming ammend the constitution that follow the rules already there. Makes better sound bites on camera too. If congress really did their jobs there would be lots of impeachment proceedings against judges. They can do that too. They could make the juditiary toe the line just like the electorate is supposed to make congress toe the line. Somewhere along the line people got fat, lazy, and corrupt.

 

[fix]

If congress really did their jobs there would be lots of impeachment proceedings against judges.

Amen.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

If Congress passed constitutional laws that were easily understood, and preferably few at that, then the Judiciary would not have the opportunity to run amok.

Most laws now passed are advisory in nature and are left to the bureaucracy to sort out (not elected things). Then when someone runs afoul of some bureaucrats interpretation, to the court we go.

This was made clear when both parties were required to bring in lawyers to explain the McRino/Feingold assault on free speech. Almost to a one, they scratched their heads and said "I didn't know that was in there" over and over. A taste of their own medicine

No contitutional amendment required. The rules are already there for Congress to clamp down on the courts.

 

[TaurusCIA]

"Our budget is fiscally responsible. If enacted, it will reduced (sic) the deficit by an unprecedented amount over the next four years."- Pres. G.W. Bush 2/22/01

Some folks exist in a vacuum.

9/11
War on terror

Remarks By U.s. Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat-california)
Press Conference Berlin, Germany February 22, 2002
(http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02022201.htm)

I am here because I decided it would be useful for a former European and the top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee to come to Europe and to indicate to our European friends the solid, unanimous support that the president has in his declared war against international terrorism. I had the privilege of managing the bill in mid-September, following the tragedy in New York and at the Pentagon, on the Democratic side, giving the president all the powers to wage this battle. It is one of those rare events where every single member of both political parties spoke who was not sick; the vote, I believe, was something like 420 to one, and that reflects the continuing view of both the Congress and the country.

 

[twoblink]

If congress really did their jobs

If the earth was flat, if I was married to Claudia Schiffer... I see some "If's" are easier to get than others... this is not one of them :banghead:

If congress really did their jobs, wouldn't they then be called PROGRESS???

 

[Gray Peterson]

If Congress had the right to limit jurisdiction generally, or even to reverse SCOTUS decisions by 2/3rds vote, then why does the 11th amendment exist?

This bill would ex post facto reverse SCOTUS positions. This is very dangerous precedent and can be used as a battering ram against RKBA too.

 

[Dex Sinister]

I have't read the bill but I do know you'll see a lot more discussion.

Well, it's certainly short enough to put up here:

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.

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.

This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.

Dex's Translation: By act of Congress, Congress declares that Congress, not the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and Congress may amend the Constitution at whim of agreement by 2/3rds vote of both houses.

Analysis: Fails to pass "the Constitution is the supreme law of the land" test.

Easy example: Congress passes, by 2/3rds of both houses, a bill requiring internal passports, abolishing Habeus Corpus, banning all guns, and authorizing indefinite detention without trial for anyone speaking out against the government.

SC overrides as unconstitutional, Congress overrides by 2/3rds vote of both houses: <POOF!> Police State.

Dex }:>=-

 

[Black Snowman]

"What do all men in power want? More power." - the character The Oracle , from "Matrix: Reloaded"

This gives the Legislature (already introducing and passing unconstituonal laws that slip buy the SCOTUS) the power to assume absolute control and reform the government as they see fit. It's things like this which make me glad I'm an ARMED American.

 

[tyme]

Introduced:
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2]

cosponsors:
Rep Coble, Howard - 3/9/2004 [NC-6]
Rep Collins, Mac - 3/9/2004 [GA-8]
Rep DeMint, Jim - 3/9/2004 [SC-4]
Rep Doolittle, John T. - 3/9/2004 [CA-4]
Rep Everett, Terry - 3/9/2004 [AL-2]
Rep Franks, Trent - 3/9/2004 [AZ-2]
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 3/9/2004 [VA-5]
Rep Hefley, Joel - 3/9/2004 [CO-5]
Rep Kingston, Jack - 3/9/2004 [GA-1]
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 3/9/2004 [PA-16]
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 3/9/2004 [CA-11]

That's as good a list as any to start with in determining who not to vote for this Fall. None of those people understands our form of government. I think it's impossible to suggest such an amendment given a mere passing familiarity with a small number of founding documents.

 

[BowStreetRunner]

Dex Sinister,
you are right on with your analysis
the SCOTUS is far from perfect, sometimes even horrible but a world where the legislature has unchecked power is not one we need
BSR