Congress vs. Supreme Court

[tecoyah]

I find it hard to comprehend the reasoning behind this. Why would we second guess the very people we have placed into the position to make such important descisions in the first place. Mind you, some of the upcoming changes to the constitution may indeed need to be reviewed, but still.

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

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPO's PDF Display Congressional Record References Bill Summary & Status Printer Friendly Display - 2,155 bytes.[Help] XML Display
[Help]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.




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

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display

[WarWagon]

So much for the system of checks and balances. Of course, if this were to go through, it would likely be overturned...

[nanofever]

I guess that after the executive branch decided to trample checks and balances; congress also wanted to get in on the game.

[seretogis]

This is to prevent "legislating from the bench" -- activist Judges essentially re-writing laws as they see fit. The judicial branch does not represent the will of the people and is not accountable to them in any way. This legislation, as well as attempts to break up the Ninth Circuit, is the legislative branch's way of trying to fix the system.

I find it hard to comprehend the reasoning behind this. Why would we second guess the very people we have placed into the position to make such important descisions in the first place. Mind you, some of the upcoming changes to the constitution may indeed need to be reviewed, but still.

Huh? We did what? When did you vote for any of the Supreme Court justices?

[lordjeebus]

So what happens when the Supreme Court rules this unconstitutional? Can congress reverse that decision? Or does they lose that power when it's ruled unconstitutional?

Congress is asking for trouble.

[maximusveritas]

Yeah, I remember reading about this. It has to be one of the stupidest bills ever written. It's authors are probably just using it to pander to their extremist base. I doubt they ever thought it had a chance of going anywhere. I mean, there are a lot of insane people in Congress, but they're not THAT insane.

[Sparhawk]

It's a little sad that the current Congress, which should be better known as the Administration's rubber stamp, wants to get into some sort of schoolyard match with the other "lesser branch," when it should focus its energies on the executive.

[filtherton]

I think that the congress should just suspend the constitution. Why not? They're already trying to wipe their asses with it.

[pan6467]

In regard to this bill, we as a population are sleeping. Most of the people are so turned of by the hate and insanity of the partisan games and the talking heads, (who spew forth nothing but hatred towards those that disagree and treat those that disagree like they are ignorant), that they don't care anymore, feel they have no voice, or just flatly have resigned themselves to the loss of rights. So this could pass. Hopefully, we have enough truly honorable politicians that realize what this would do and laugh it out of Congress, bury it 1000 feet underground, erase any information that they ever considered the idea and move on.

Originally posted by seretogis
This is to prevent "legislating from the bench" -- activist Judges essentially re-writing laws as they see fit. The judicial branch does not represent the will of the people and is not accountable to them in any way. This legislation, as well as attempts to break up the Ninth Circuit, is the legislative branch's way of trying to fix the system.

I think in the end the Supreme Court would have to rule that Congress overstepped their authority and unless the bill became an amendment. Congress then by the nature of the bill could feasibly overturn it and then we would have chaos. And either the Supreme Court would lose all power, or Congressmen voting to "overturn" the Supreme Court would be held in contempt. Either way it would change the Constitution in ways that nothing (short of an amendment) ever has.

Huh? We did what? When did you vote for any of the Supreme Court justices?

First, the 9th Circuit is not the final say on anything, last time I checked. There's the Court of Appeals and then there's the Supreme Court, so to say the 9th Circuit can pass judgements unchecked is more than just a little partisan and biased over what comes down. There's 10 other Circuits and I'm sure Libs can find a complaint just as substantial and fair over one of the others. But of course the Libs don't have a Limbaugh and other Clear Channel right winged talking heads blasting it every week. By the way who is trying to break up the 9th Circuit and how did you hear this information?

But instead of griping why don't you tell us what laws the 9th circuit changed or passed judgement on that have affected your rights and life in a negative way?

I guess it's easy to sit back act lbelieve you are better than the founders of this nation and pick and choose what you like in the Constitution. Yet, when someone else argues about a part of the Constitution you may like you'll scream "how dare you?" and tell them they must not believe in it.

Such hypocrasy. Love it when people claim one part of the Constitution is sooooo wrong yet the parts they like, well.... Much like gun control freaks arguing over the 2nd amendment yet demanding the 1st is the greatest thing.

The WHOLE Constitution is the law of the land. once you discard any part of it you destroy it. We have changed some things (called amendments) but over all it remains intact. Bush and every president before found ways to get things passed into law that may be iffy as to the power, but the truly bad ones eventually get overturned or repealed.

Secondly, I believe he meant we may need to check on the CONGRESSMEN/WOMEN that we vote for if they pass this bill.

[Lebell]

Any one who understands the US constitution knows that if this Bill becomes law, it could very well be proven unconstitutional itself, and therefore moot.

[pan6467]

Originally posted by Lebell
Any one who understands the US constitution knows that if this Bill becomes law, it could very well be proven unconstitutional itself, and therefore moot.

Theoretically, what I could see happening is that the SC would overturn it, saying an amendment would be necessary. Then IF 2/3rds of the House voted against the ruling we would have a serious Constitutional crisis as not seen since the Civil War. That would be, either the SC would basically lose all power and thus Judicial and Executive would probably merge, OR the SC would hold those in the House voting against the ruling in contempt and try them for treason.

That is very theoretical, and worse case scenario. I firmly believe that this won't go anywhere. And it may be the true wake up call to people to see how badly they need to start paying attention and voting.

Even with Limbaugh and company's praises, it'll die a fast death, but the good thing is if Limbaugh or one of them do support it, not only will it show how little they know about government but people who believe every word they say will see how they just say whatever they are told to. So, by all means Mr. Limbaugh please tell us all how great this law is.

[Zeld2.0]

Grr it is annoying a bit to see all this takl of changing the Constitution and stuff... hey its worked for 225 years, if it ain't broke, don't fix it

[Asuka{eve}]

T3h government need to use checks and balances to stop this.

[Superbelt]

The guy who is submitting this bill is an absolute moron, first.

Secondly, to the digs against the 9th circuit. A little bit of perspective is in order.
______________________

The 9th circuit is much maligned by the far right as an "activist" panel of judges who somehow are able to write laws. They say that this court is out of step with the rest of America.

in 2001 the 9th circuit saw 10,372 of these only 14 were overturned. That is a rate of 1.35 overturns per thousand.

The 9th circuit is the largest in america. Largest by far. The next closest in size is the 4th circuit. Widely known as a very conservative panel.

the 4th circuit saw 5,078 cases in 2001 7 were overturned by the Supreme Court. That is a rate of 1.38 per thousand. The 4th circuit, the second largest in america is half the size of the 9th circuit

So to review.

9th - 10372/14
4th -- 5078/7

The 9th has a lower correction rate in regards to all the cases it sees.

http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html

Go to the link, see the map. Compare it to the 4th. Remember that California alone has 1/8th of the US population.

[tecoyah]

I feel the need to compliment everyone in this thread. This is what TFPolitics should be like, casual debate concerning important issues. No one in this thread has been inflamatory or rude, and respect has been shown all around.
At the same time, very pertinent information is shared and rebutted, in civil and logical tones.

I love you guys.......*sniff*

[pan6467]

Originally posted by Superbelt
The guy who is submitting this bill is an absolute moron, first.

I agree whole heartedly. I don't know what is sadder though the fact 11 others have their name on this bill in agreement with him ...... or the fact that real people out here support this.

Somewhere in Congress there has someone looked at this man, grabbed him by his neck and noggied him while laughing and saying, "I love these Freshmen Reps., they'll put their name on anything."

[Publius]

It is topics like this that never cease to amaze me on so many levels. First of all, go read your constitution people. You will not find anywhere within the constitution where it specifically gives the Supreme Court to right of Judicial Review over any act of government, including Congress. This power was seized by a judicially active court under John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803). Since that time there has been much lively debate about judicial review, especially when it concerns acts of congress, and the pendulum has swung both ways on this one between active courts taking more power for themselves and Congress seeking to take back a power which it continues to maintain it ultimately holds. Congress does in fact hold ultimate power over the Courts because, if it so choose, it could dissolve all but the Supreme Court thereby insuring that the Court was too swamped with cases to play an active role.

However, I have to come down on the side of the courts on this one. If it were not for the active courts to challenge the combined power of the legislative and executive branches, there would be little in the way of insure personal liberties against an overly aggressive combined effort of the two branches. This should be evident from the vast body of cases that the Supreme Court has chosen to hear. Pick as case, any case, and you will see that the Court chooses its battles for a specific reason, most usually because it wishes to address a particular problem that is facing society at large. The Court was established to be a neutral party between the people and the government and, I would argue, for the most part it has been successful in this role. Even if you don’t agree with a particular decision of the Court (9th circus anyone?) you have to admit that the topics that the Court chooses to address are ones that need to be openly debated within society and sometimes the Court needs to act as the cartelist for getting this important debate started.

As for this particular bill, I find it rather asinine. If the Congress doesn’t like a particular ruling of the Court it has within its power the ability to rewrite the legislation such that it will meet judicial scrutiny. This is the very first thing that anyone learns when taking any basic constitutional law class. The ultimate power resides with we the people.

[nanofever]

Originally posted by Publius
It is topics like this that never cease to amaze me on so many levels. First of all, go read your constitution people. You will not find anywhere within the constitution where it specifically gives the Supreme Court to right of Judicial Review over any act of government, including Congress. This power was seized by a judicially active court under John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).

The Commerce Clause is what Congress uses to justify a vast majority of its legislation. The framers of the constitution did not intent for this to be the case, and more likley than not, they would be repulsed by this usage of the Commerce Clause. For better or worse, the strict constructionist view of the constitution is dead to the majority of the government.

Since that time there has been much lively debate about judicial review, especially when it concerns acts of congress, and the pendulum has swung both ways on this one between active courts taking more power for themselves and Congress seeking to take back a power which it continues to maintain it ultimately holds. Congress does in fact hold ultimate power over the Courts because, if it so choose, it could dissolve all but the Supreme Court thereby insuring that the Court was too swamped with cases to play an active role.

Congress could try that but it would cost them their entire treasury of legitimacy. Legitimacy is what allows Congress and the SCOTUS to "get away" with actions that border on un-constitution and judicial activism, respectivly. When that idea is added to the near fact that anyone voting for that bill would lose their senate seat, the likelyhood of this happening is nil. If your wondering, the loss of the senate seat would come from outrage of the legal profession and the amazing wealth that they contribute to Senator's campaigns. Since the court clog would essentially destroy the legal field, you can bet that a LOT of money would be going to people who would resciend the legislation.

However, I have to come down on the side of the courts on this one. If it were not for the active courts to challenge the combined power of the legislative and executive branches, there would be little in the way of insure personal liberties against an overly aggressive combined effort of the two branches. This should be evident from the vast body of cases that the Supreme Court has chosen to hear. Pick as case, any case, and you will see that the Court chooses its battles for a specific reason, most usually because it wishes to address a particular problem that is facing society at large. The Court was established to be a neutral party between the people and the government and, I would argue, for the most part it has been successful in this role. Even if you don’t agree with a particular decision of the Court (9th circus anyone?) you have to admit that the topics that the Court chooses to address are ones that need to be openly debated within society and sometimes the Court needs to act as the cartelist for getting this important debate started.

As for this particular bill, I find it rather asinine. If the Congress doesn’t like a particular ruling of the Court it has within its power the ability to rewrite the legislation such that it will meet judicial scrutiny. This is the very first thing that anyone learns when taking any basic constitutional law class. The ultimate power resides with we the people. [/B]

Have to agree with the last section of your post.

[Zeld2.0]

Simply put - once government has power, it will never relinquish it.

And that has held true - when any branch of government is given a power, it will never ever let anyone else try to take it from them.

[Superbelt]

Congress does in fact hold ultimate power over the Courts because, if it so choose, it could dissolve all but the Supreme Court thereby insuring that the Court was too swamped with cases to play an active role.

The three branches were set up in a way that allow them to check each others power. Congress does not have ultimate control over that branch. If they would dissolve the rest of the courts, the SC wouldn't necessarially be swamped. They pick and choose what cases to hear. They can deign to just sit back and watch the havoc. It's not like they would be able to make a dent in it anyway.

[pocon1]

If Congress wants to make a change, they can amend the Constitution. that already requires a 2/3rds majority to do. They can put any law in as an amendment.

[Publius]

Originally posted by pocon1
If Congress wants to make a change, they can amend the Constitution. that already requires a 2/3rds majority to do. They can put any law in as an amendment.

Fortunately this is not exactly true, one also has to seek 2/3 of the States before the Constitution can be ammended. Thank God the founders put so many checks into the system or Lord only knows the mess we would be in now.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by pan6467
Theoretically, what I could see happening is that the SC would overturn it, saying an amendment would be necessary. Then IF 2/3rds of the House voted against the ruling we would have a serious Constitutional crisis as not seen since the Civil War. That would be, either the SC would basically lose all power and thus Judicial and Executive would probably merge, OR the SC would hold those in the House voting against the ruling in contempt and try them for treason.

That is very theoretical, and worse case scenario. I firmly believe that this won't go anywhere. And it may be the true wake up call to people to see how badly they need to start paying attention and voting.

Even with Limbaugh and company's praises, it'll die a fast death, but the good thing is if Limbaugh or one of them do support it, not only will it show how little they know about government but people who believe every word they say will see how they just say whatever they are told to. So, by all means Mr. Limbaugh please tell us all how great this law is.

It wouldn't matter if 2/3 of Congress voted against it, it would be necessary to pass ammend the Constitution itself which would require 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the States, which would be very unlikely to happen.

[pan6467]

Originally posted by Lebell
It wouldn't matter if 2/3 of Congress voted against it, it would be necessary to pass ammend the Constitution itself which would require 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the States, which would be very unlikely to happen.

Ah, but the bill says 2/3 of the House could overturn (reverse) the SC. There by overturning the ruling that an amendment would be needed.

I kinda like these hypotheticals because they do stimulate thought and make one wonder what if. My creative mind just goes then....... and soon I'm wearing tinfoil hats, swearing the tv talks to me, and drinking Nyquil to keep alert.

What's that, Nurse Cratchit?........ I already took my dose of thorazine today.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by pan6467
Ah, but the bill says 2/3 of the House could overturn (reverse) the SC. There by overturning the ruling that an amendment would be needed.

I kinda like these hypotheticals because they do stimulate thought and make one wonder what if. My creative mind just goes then....... and soon I'm wearing tinfoil hats, swearing the tv talks to me, and drinking Nyquil to keep alert.

What's that, Nurse Cratchit?........ I already took my dose of thorazine today.

You don't understand.

Just because Congress SAYS it overturned the SC doesn't make it so.

What matters is what the CONSTITUTION says and they Constitution says that the SC has the power to determine if laws passed by Congress are in keeping with it.

[pan6467]

But the LAW that would be passed says that the House with 2/3rds vote can overturn the SC rulings.

LOL..... I do understand what you are saying.

Didn't Abbott and Costello do this?

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lebell


What matters is what the CONSTITUTION says and they Constitution says that the SC has the power to determine if laws passed by Congress are in keeping with it.

Umm going back to the point that I was attempting to make earlier is that the Consitution doesnt actually say that the SC has the power to determine laws passed by Congress unconstitutional. This was a right assumed for the SC under John Marshall and fortunatly neither of the other two branches have seriously ever challenged it. (Actually both branches have challenged it, but never together so that the other branch was always working against them. Actually thats not entirely true, Roosevelt threatened to pack the SC so that they couldn't rule against him and he had the support of the Senate to do so, but the SC decided it was better to just go along with what Roosevelt was doing then to end up with a packed court, hence the saying, 'A stitch in time saves nine (9 refering to the 9 SC justices, so now you know the rest of the story))


ok so here is article 3, section 2, clause 1 just for the hell of it.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State;between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Publius
Umm going back to the point that I was attempting to make earlier is that the Consitution doesnt actually say that the SC has the power to determine laws passed by Congress unconstitutional. This was a right assumed for the SC under John Marshall and fortunatly neither of the other two branches have seriously ever challenged it. (Actually both branches have challenged it, but never together so that the other branch was always working against them. Actually thats not entirely true, Roosevelt threatened to pack the SC so that they couldn't rule against him and he had the support of the Senate to do so, but the SC decided it was better to just go along with what Roosevelt was doing then to end up with a packed court, hence the saying, 'A stitch in time saves nine (9 refering to the 9 SC justices, so now you know the rest of the story))


ok so here is article 3, section 2, clause 1 just for the hell of it.

Interesting facts.

I just reread Article III though, and I would think that it still would be that it is up to the courts and ultimately SCOTUS to decide constitutionality issues.

[Superbelt]

Continued from:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ar#post1736726
HERE.....

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Yeah because it only hears at most a handful of cases from those smaller courts. At most the 4,5,8,10 courts only had three cases before the SC, compared with 24 for the 9th. The 9th nearly had as many unanimous overturned decisions as the other courts had cases, that is an interesting number. What about decisions between 96'-97' when 27 out of 28 decisions by the 9th were reversed?

If you want to play the numbers like that.
The 9th has over 10k cases a year that the SC chooses not to hear.
The 4th only has 5k.

[flstf]

Governments are fragile things aren't they? If Congress decides to discard the Constitution, citizens may have to take back control of the country sooner than I thought. If they want to overturn the SP then they should have to go through the process of amending the Constitution.

[Seaver]

I find it hard to comprehend the reasoning behind this. Why would we second guess the very people we have placed into the position to make such important descisions in the first place. Mind you, some of the upcoming changes to the constitution may indeed need to be reviewed, but still.

I REALLY hate to take the role of blaming activist judges, but in this case Congress is doing what the SC has been doing for years, they're taking over the powers of the other.

In the 60's they ruled the laws of Separate But Equal were unconstitutional, this was within their powers. However when they themselves make laws they overstepped their bounds, no matter how needed they were. The Supreme Court can ONLY INTERPRET the law, they can not make it. What this new law states is that the Congress is taking over the SC's job. It is unconstitutional, but personally I dont think they truely believed it was going to pass, I think it was a feinght warning to the SC about future actions.

[Superbelt]

Well, what laws has the courts made?

[Ace_O_Spades]

This reminds me of the notwithstanding clause we have up in Canada.

The government is allowed to ignore a court ruling, but it is EXTREMELY unpopular. It is controlled by a "sunset" clause which states the law must be reviewed after five years.

It has worked so far for us... The clause has only been used once, and it was by Quebec... But nobody cares about Quebec.

[moosenose]

Originally Posted by Lebell

It wouldn't matter if 2/3 of Congress voted against it, it would be necessary to pass ammend the Constitution itself which would require 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the States, which would be very unlikely to happen.

Come on, folks....Read Article V of the US Constitution....it's 2/3 of both Houses of Congress, and 3/4 of the States.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by seretogis

This is to prevent "legislating from the bench" -- activist Judges essentially re-writing laws as they see fit. The judicial branch does not represent the will of the people and is not accountable to them in any way. This legislation, as well as attempts to break up the Ninth Circuit, is the legislative branch's way of trying to fix the system.

Judicial activism happens from both sides and while we're discussing who does what, allowing this crap house bill to even exist totally destroys any justice to someone in the minority.

Originally Posted by seretogis

Huh? We did what? When did you vote for any of the Supreme Court justices?

everytime you voted for president and senators, YOU voted for a judge.