Congress Seeks Authority to Overturn Supreme Court Decisions

Better late than never.

It's gonna take an ammendment to get this done. The courts will just rule that this legislation is unconstitutional.

Better never than ever. Do you want the Dems to also have the power to effectively amend the Constitution, bypassing the requirements of three-quarters of the states ratifying amendments? There already is a Constitutnional remedy for overzealous judges. It's called impeachment and removal. Whenever you applaud short-circuiting the process to alter the Constitution, realize that you are playing this game on the Dem's home field in the process.

"Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY) has offered legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow Congress to overturn future U.S. Supreme Court decisions by a super majority vote."

So if we can’t beat’m, join’m?

A vote to overturn the Constitution by a vote. This is a joke, right?

Again, both parties prove that they are unfit to control the country...yet they still do.

Marbury v Madison was an incorrect and pernicious ruling. This will serve to put the Congress and Judiciary on equal footing, as they were before Marbury V Madison and as was intended.

Remember Thomas Jefferson's quote "You made your ruling, Justice Madison... NOW YOU ENFORECE IT!"

JEFFERSON WOULD BE PROUD!

Terrible. They should be kept seperate. Even if that means we have to accept court decisions that suck.

Stupid idea that paves the way for bribing congress.

Why not just hold impeachment proceedings against judges who don't rule on constitutional law? That is how you fix the machine at it's root cause.

Please read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about Marbury v Madison if you don't agree with this - his writing will change your mind.

He called the effect of Marbury v Madison a FEO DE SE, or ACT OF SUICIDE!

The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."

—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best."

—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

"My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."

—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:214

This is wrong-headed and should be stopped in its tracks. Sure, you may like this because there are mre Rs than Ds in congress right now, but what if there aren't?

Think about it...what if this was the law in 2000 and the House and Senate were controlled by Ds..they didn't like the Supreme Court's ruling in the Bush v Gore suit over the recount... or what if some future court strikes down Roe v Wade and a Dem controlled congress says, now wait a minute....

Putting all that aside, by doing this, congress effectively elimiates one of the checks on its self...The founders knew what they were doing when they set up our government. No one branch has too much power... this would tip the balances to congress and that scares me, even more than liberal judges.

The Congress already has constitutional power in Article 3 to "regulate the juridiction" of the Supreme Court. They could, for instance, simply vote that the SC has no juridiction over abortion. All it takes is political courage, which is in short supply in D.C.

It's not a joke and it needs to happen.

Super Majority = 2/3 majority or the same number required to ratify the Constitution.

Our system of checks and balances has run amok with liberal judges legislating from the bench - and mostly against the will of the majority of the constituency.

The USSC no longer takes into consideration the majority of Americans in their decision making, and judges from every level on down emulate them.

The USSC uses European legal precedent in major rulings affecting America even over traditional U.S. law (e.g., legalizing homosexual marriage).

The USSC is out of order and must be brought down from the Oligarchic Throne.

The USSC has become nothing more than a mouthpiece of socialism and liberalism and will ruin our nation through their unlimited powers unless they come into check.

They must be checked and brought back into balance NOW!

The next step in denying God's sovereignty over the United States will go to these nine people . .

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 - The Oligarchy*

(All Your Sovereignty Are Belong To Us!)

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

"Think about it...what if this was the law in 2000 and the House and Senate were controlled by Ds..they didn't like the Supreme Court's ruling in the Bush v Gore suit over the recount... "

INCORRECT that's a rat talking point, this bill is limited to the Judiciary overturning Congressional legislation, NOT any old supreme court decision.

"Putting all that aside, by doing this, congress effectively elimiates one of the checks on its self...The founders knew what they were doing when they set up our government. No one branch has too much power... this would tip the balances to congress and that scares me, even more than liberal judges."

Read my post #9 - what you think was founder intent was judicial activism in the form of Marbury v Madison. PLEASE read about the Marbury v Madison case before misrepresenting the facts.

Rather than tip the scale to congress, it RESTORES the original intent. Jefferson referred to the effect of Marbury v Madison a FEO DE SE, an ACT OF SUICIDE!

Read post #9 if you think this is a bad idea - see what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it.

Jefferson would be proud of this legislation!

"All it takes is political courage, which is in short supply in D.C."

And that is exactly why this measure is necessary.

Super Majority = 2/3 majority or the same number required to ratify the Constitution.

Eh, you're leaving out one other itty-bitty detail - the requirement that 3/4s of state legislatures ratify the amendment. We would have the ERA as law otherwise - it passed congress but was not ratified by the states.

I am so happy, I've wanted to see Marbury v Madison go away for YEARS... it's the basis for many a bad ruling which have turned a government OF the people into a government TO the people!

"Our system of checks and balances has run amok with liberal judges legislating from the bench - and mostly against the will of the majority of the constituency. "

Just looks like a ridiculous panic to me. Yes, it is a joke. Regards.

Putting all that aside, by doing this, congress effectively elimiates one of the checks on its self...

I think this is why a 'Super-Majority', or 2/3rd vote is being required instead of a simple majority.

As is, the Supremes have carte blanche to deem any law unconstitutional, or create 'laws' without any checks or balances. Congress must answer to the Supreme Court and the President; The President must answer to the Supreme Court and Congress; but who does the Supreme Court answer too?

I don't know...this could go both ways....kinda scary if it passes and 5 years from now we end up with a majority democratic congress...(shudder)