** ACTION ALERT ** SUPPORT HR 3920 - Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920: ^ | APRIL 2004 | U.S. House

[davidosborne]

I FULLY support this legislation.... we need MORE Co-Sponsors.... CALL YOUR congresscritter TODAY !!

[davidosborne]

Pass it on..

[davidosborne]

Pass it on..

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.

[E.G.C.]

Good afteronn, David. How's it going?

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[My2Cents]

Interesting idea. Will probably be found "unconstitutional," though.

[cripplecreek]

These may be of intrest.

http://www.fija.org/

http://www.jail4judges.org/

[vpintheak]

I'm all for it, but isn't it a shame it has to come to this?

[arthurus]

There is no law neede. Congress already has the right recognized in the Constitution to determine what issues the Supree court can consider.

[nolu chan]

Assuming Congress would pass an Act such as this, SCOTUS would surely rule it UNconstitutional.

Assuming Congress could authorize itself to reverse SCOTUS by a two-thirds vote of both houses, it could equally authorize itself to reverse SCOTUS by a simple majority of both houses.

[arthurus]

See #9 and please disregard the typos.

[davidosborne]

absolutely... it is a shame that the USSC has become the "SUPREME LEGISLATURE"..... I have heard all the arguments against this idea from Conservatives who think that this is a bad idea.. it will simply keep the USSC in check... it is EXTREMELY difficult to get a SUPER MAJORITY.. so therefore it won't happen very often.... but it will but the FINAL responsibility back on the ELECTED representatives......

[Sgt_Schultze]

This is the proper section of the Constitution...

Article. III - Section. 2 - Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Right now Congress could restate the law they want to restore, and forbid the Courts from dealing with the matter. Dashole has done it regarding timber cutting in his home state, there should be no squaking from the liberals... (HA!)

[davidosborne]

NOT exactly... our elected officials are very quick to point the finger at the USSC and just live with the decision of the court rather than take the responsibility to take a vote so we can see which of our elected officials agree with the "SUPREME LEGISLATORS".... the USSC takes up FAR too many cases and addresses issues that really should be taken up by congress......

[davidosborne]

I disagree this bill will put the USSC in check just like the VETO OVERRIDE puts the POTUS in check.... How often does that happen?

[middie]

It would be difficult to imagine a more blatantly and outrageously unconstitutional congressional waste of time. Thank goodness for the long-established doctrine of Marbury v. Madison (1804) by which: "...it is solely the province of the judicial department to announce what the law is." (a close paraphrase)-----It is an egregious example of the historic and traditional tension that has existed between the Supreme Court and the other two branches of government. Such authority residing in the Congress would be the most damaging intrusion into a successful distribution of power within our checks and balance system that has ever existed in our history. There have been similar attemps by one or the other houses of Congress over the years. Each has met the fate that this one should likewise meet.

This horrific attempt to denigrate the Constitution and religate it to nothing more than a statute book to be tampered with at the whim of elected officials holding their offices at the will of the madding crowd without regard for our organic and foundational governing document.

[ChevyZ28]

You are right, Congress can limit the USSC jurisdiction by simply stating the Federal Courts have no authority to review the law blocked from review.

[davidosborne]

I think your concern is well stated... but I happen to disagree with you... I don't see congress using this authority unless the people "force" them too with political pressure.... as it stands now the USSC does not have to answer to the people.. and once the judges are in place it is VERY difficult to get rid of them when their "interprerations" of law are NOT what the people say it is........ If we force congress to take a vote on the "contoversial" issues that the USSC rules on.. we the people are in a better position to know where they stand and can vote or not vote for them accordingly..... I would like to see this bill debated... but I don't see that happening any time soon..

David

[arthurus]

If our legislators will not use the power that they do explicitly have then no amount of new lawmaking will rectify the situation but will get us into new situations wherein the new law will be used to accomplish the opposite of its stated intent. Consider RICO.

[middie]

Bingo! That's the entire point. It is not for the people, ie: the public of any given day, to say what the law is. That decision is vested by the Constitution in the judicial department--and nowhere else. The people can enact, through local, state and federally elected legislators and officials in the executive branch, those laws they choose. The only limitation on that unfettered power is that any law, regulation or ordinance must comform to constitutional principles. It is that determination that rests solely with the judiciary.

The elimination of that check and balance would be nothing less than an invitation to tyranny of the majority with the resultant subjugation of the minority in those areas that are otherwise protected immunities, privileges and rights expressed or reasonably implied in the text or governing caselaw of the Constitution.