Reining In the Court

The New American ^ | July 28, 2003 | William Norman Grigg

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

The judges will do as they please until the electorate holds them accountable.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78

Antifederalist No. 78-79

First, all courts inferior to the Supreme Court (which is a creation of Article III of the U.S. Constitution) were created by Congress, and can be dissolved by Congress if necessary.

Congress Must Curb the Imperial Judiciary

How Congress Can Rein in the Courts by Edwin Meese

Second, under Article III, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to define exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction the Supreme Court and, by extension, all other federal courts.

Congress, the Court, and the Constitution

Third, Congress has the power, when necessary, to impeach any federal judge, including Supreme Court justices.

It's Time to Hold Federal Judges Accountable

Impeaching Federal Judges: A Covenantal and Constitutional Response to Judicial Tyranny

Impeachment Clauses

Topics in Judicial History

[Old Sarge]

All legal. All legitimate.

Won't never happen, but just the same...

[PistolPaknMama]

Excellent post! Bumping for later reference. thank you!

[Restorer]

Interesting to see what would happen if the Supremes ruled a law limiting their jurisdiction unconstitutional.

[ysoitanly]

Thank you for posting this! I was just wondering if there was any recourse to the runaway trend that the judicial branch is now serving as the king and his court and was feeling pretty hopeless. Do we have to (groan) do something to get Congress to act or can we take action (through initiatives, etc.) if they (most assuredly) do nothing?

[StriperSniper]

Bump for later.

[Eastbound]

BTTT! Time for Congress to sharpen up those wooden stakes.

[swilhelm73]

As other posters have mentioned this is great...but our Reps haven't the guts to take this kind of stand...let alone how quickly the RINOs would jump.

[tpaine]

"By simple majority vote, Congress could pass an act denying federal jurisdiction over social issues of any kind, such as abortion, pornography, and homosexuality. This would leave the state legislatures free to enact (or, in most cases, re-enact) laws on those matters reflecting the moral consensus of their constituents."


Total, ignorant, BS.

Such an 'act' would be repugnant to our constitution, as it would enable states to violate our individual rights as per our bill of rights.

The congressmen who passed such an act would be violating their oath of office to protect & defend our republic.

Those who propose these anti-constitutional authoritarian schemes are not conservatives, nor are they friends of the free republic forum, imo.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Go to back to the French Revolution where you belong.

[wafflehouse]

ok, listen again to these words....

There is NO federal jurisdiction over social issues of any kind, such as abortion, pornography, and homosexuality

This is is another issue of (nonexistent) State Sovereignity

now that that is out of the way, PLEASE tell me where in the bill of rights 'abortion, pornography, and homosexuality' show up?

[expatpat]

To paraphrase what a Fascist once said: "How many army divisions does the SCOTUS have?"

[findingtruth]

Anti-constitutional? It's right there in the Constitution. Art. III, Sec. 2. Can't you read?

[swilhelm73]

Well if the current SCOTUS has taught us anything, it is that just because something is in the Constitution, eg 2nd and 10th Amendments, doesn't mean it is in fact constitutional, and just because something is not, eg new 'rights' to abortion and sodomy, does not mean the Supreme Court can't write them in.

Sigh, one wonders if the founders would have moved to the Constitution and a federal system if they knew that one day we would have replaced one king three thousand miles away with three thousand judicial tyrants one mile away...

[tpaine]

French revolution?
Typical mindless, meamingless idiocy.

Get a grip or take it to the backroom.

[tpaine]

Nor is there state power delegated over such issues.

Our unenumerated 9th amendment rights to life, liberty, & property "show up" pretty much everywhere in everyday living.
Why would you deny you have them?

[LiteKeeper]

SITREP - Law

[Kevin Curry]

By simple majority vote, Congress could pass an act denying federal jurisdiction over social issues of any kind, such as abortion, pornography, and homosexuality. This would leave the state legislatures free to enact (or, in most cases, re-enact) laws on those matters reflecting the moral consensus of their constituents.

Exactly right. However, liberals and libertarians--who together are greasing this nation on a heavy sled down a fast track to socialist hell--would never allow such legislation to be passed.

[wafflehouse]

Nor is there state power delegated over such issues.

what are you talking about? please re-read your bill of rights.. or buy a book that explains it in small words.. your ignorance is showing..

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Kevin Curry]

The language is there as clear as day. However, tpaine doesn't like it, so he doesn't even see it. He has a psychological block, a lacuna in his sensibilites and understanding.