Replies

that does not mean it continues to have jurisdiction over them once they are established. At least, not to me.

To me, when people say that the Constitution is "not a suicide pact," they mean that anything that can be enacted by one Congress can be undone by a future Congress. It's been a long-standing tenet that one Congress cannot bind a future Congress, that is, Congress cannot pass a law saying that the law is irrevocable.

The only way to "bind" future Congresses is by amendment, but even amendments can be repealed by future amendments. However, it's the states that ratify amendments, not Congress.

Congress has never abolished an inferior court, but most scholars believe that it has the power to do so. I would think that realigning the courts would be a more likely action. Still, whatever Congress does must satisfy the "necessary and proper" clause in Article I Section 8:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress would have to show that abolishing a court is "necessary and proper" in the current circumstances, and does not violate other powers in the Constitution. Conversely, Congress would have to show that any new encumbrances or constraints are also necessary and proper and also don't violate other powers granted in the Constitution.

-PJ

I must not have explained myself clearly. As I said, I think it's implied that Congress could 'disestablish' a court if they can establish one. But that is not the same as having 'jurisdiction' over the court. It's like confirming a nomination to the Supreme Court. Congress has that power, but once a Justice is on the Supreme Court, Congress only has the power of impeachment of individual justices. They can't dictate that the lower courts do the sorts of things that were being discussed any more than they can dictate that the Supreme Court justices do (or don't do) something except through impeachment.

I think it's interesting that the Supreme Court has no real power. Its power is only through influence. At times (Andrew Jackson famously) a President has flatly ignored the Supreme Court. Biden has done it on Student Loan reassignment to taxpaers. Several local/circuit courts and local/state governments are ignoring the Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment.

The reason that seems relevant is because it's possible that some or all of those 'rules' might become set in the public perception enough that they become de facto law even if the Constitution process is not followed.

That is because - ultimately - "We, the People" determine our laws. We have accepted the regulatory power of bureaucrats despite the clear words of the Constitution. We have accepted judge-made law at all levels despite the clear words of the Constitution. And that means anything might happen.

I happen to be a strict Constitutionalist. If I had the power, I would require that we go back to what it says as fully as possible - recognizing that some words, like, "the Press", have changed since the Constituion was ratified and need to be understood as "We, the People" would understand them currently. Today's "We, the People" would clearly put electronic media under the umbrella of the word, "Press." But with the exception of development due to evolving technology, I would interpret the Constitution literally. That's why I'm not sure I agree that Congress has 'jurisdiction' over the lower courts after they are established.