The Constitution of the United States Article III. Section. 1.

The Constitution of the United States ^ | 3/3/05 | Numerous

[Archon of the East]

Amen! Natural rights gives all equal opportunity based on those rights. Unfortunately as FReepers understand the courts are ruling for equal outcomes which necessarily means treating people unequally, the antithesis of that great founding document We need to turn up the heat on all of our leaders.IMHO we need to be screaming much louder at Dirty Harry and CO. that we are watching and will not tolerate it or ever forget it!

[elephantlips]

Cyclopean Squid's original point concerned itself with those who have the right to create legislation v. those who do not. Judicial review exists because there is no one who has the appropriate body parts to stand up and say; "enough!" Soon, if nothing changes, judges will originate bills for the congress, their subserviant branch, to pass for the judges approval, of course.

[Blood of Tyrants]

As I read the Constitution, Congress has been give the power to place their laws outside the judicial review of the SC. Just pass the law with the following section: "In accordance with the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2, the Supreme Court is prohibited from reviewing this law without permission from 1/2 of the members of both the House and the Senate.

[steve-b]

As I read the Constitution, Congress has been give the power to place their laws outside the judicial review of the SC.

You need to read more carefully, then. Start by looking up the distinction between "original" and "appellate" jurisdiction, and note that the recited Congressional control applies only to the latter.

At best, Congress could transfer the ultimate say in a judicial matter to a lesser court (except for the stuff about ambassadors, etc, where the Supreme Court is guaranteed original jurisdiction).

[Blood of Tyrants]

I disagree. The Constitution has also given Congress the authority to establish lesser courts such as the Circuit Courts and other appellate courts. I would argue that the Constituion would NEVER allow that courts could be established that are completely outside the oversight and ability of Congress to be able to limit it's scope. The same powers given to Congress over the SC also apply to any other court they create.

[steve-b]

Er, no. The Congress has the authority to regulate both the original* and appellate jurisdiction of lesser courts (not stated, but implicit in the statement that such courts are the creatures of Congress). The Supreme Court is a creature of the Constitution directly, not of Congress, and thus Congressional power over it is what is specifically recited (i.e. control of appellate jurisdiction).

*with one exception: Congress cannot transfer original jurisdiction over certain cases, specifically reserved to the Supreme Court by the Constitution, to any lesser court.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The Congress has the authority to regulate both the original* and appellate jurisdiction of lesser courts (not stated, but implicit in the statement that such courts are the creatures of Congress).

I thought that is what I was saying. Anyway, that is what I meant.

[Archon of the East]

It seems ultimately, given the debates that are going on, the success of limiting judicial activism will almost solely be based on the Appointment of judges that believe in the limited power of their branch and adhere to the Constitution's principles and formalities.Not that there aren't some other methods by which they can be forced to do so, its just that I don't see it happening. Turn up the heat, write letters and do everything possible to stop the erosion of principled Government.

[shubi]

It says the Congress should pass laws regarding equal protection. It gave no rights to the Supreme court to pass laws or enforce them.

[shubi]

Amen!

[DMZFrank]

Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.

We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny. The nebulous references to "growing national consensus" and citations of "international law" are just too much to countenance. What does it take to make 5 of these justices cognizant of the fact that their authority to preside originates in the US CONSTITUTION?

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful. Congress can and should impeach federal judges for blatently unconstitutional rulings that manufacture law.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.