HR3920 - To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3920.html ^ | 03/09/04 | Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. POMBO, Mr. COBLE, Mr. COLLINS, Mr.

[CapandBall]

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. END

[DManA]

The court has interpreted the 1st amendment - "Congress shall make no law " to mean - congress may pass a law if it feels like it. Seems like the Supreme court has given Congress all the power it needs to do this.

[trek]

"so what you're saying then......even tho they found the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional...Texas could still use that law until federal law enforcement stepped in to control the situation??"

That is exactly correct. If President Bush were to declare that the Court's ruling in Lawrence clearly had no basis in the Constitution and that he had no intention of enforcing the ruling the Texas Law would stand.

[mabelkitty]

Not!
They need to get a grip!

[JLS]

Actually Article 3 Section 2 says:

"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."

My reading of the particularly the part in bold and the reading of others of it is that Congress may already limit Supreme Court jurisdiction in a matter by a majority vote. After the 1930s Court packing indicent they do not have the guts to do so. This to me is a typcial legislative response trying to please everyone.

That is you introduce a bill to please your base, even if it passes, it makes you worse off, ie super majority rather than the now simple majority to restrict the US Supreme Court, and you still will not have the guts to ever use this law.

That is not to say I think Congress should act. Congress could have passed a bill saying the US Supreme Court has no jurisdition over laws it passes to protect the flag. That is probably beneign. Congress could have passed a law saying the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over equal protection in education. That would have been a very bad idea, but it might have gotten a majority in the Dim Congress of 1955. Congress might have passed a law in 1975 saying the Court has no jurisdiction in issues concerning what is homicide, ie abortion. That might have been a good idea and this political issue could have been sorted out politically, not by judical fiat.

But the above outlines the problem. You can not be sure Congress would act in the way you think it right.

[gitmo]

Amending the Constitution is useless if the Courts force us to pretend the amendments say something completely different.

[k2blader]

Bump for later browse.

[BikerNYC]

If President Bush were to declare that the Court's ruling in Lawrence clearly had no basis in the Constitution and that he had no intention of enforcing the ruling the Texas Law would stand.

Then why have a Supreme Court at all? The President could make all Constitutional determinations, since he is the one who gets to decide which ones have a valid basis in the Constitution and which ones will be enforced.

[KevinDavis]

Sorry this bill stinks..

[BikerNYC]

It's not useless, since the Constitution may always be amended again.

The whole point of this is the give-and-take between branches of government, and not to give one branch with the all-consuming power to determine something once and for all.

[PAR35]

Of course, the Supreme Court will be the ones who rule on the Constitutionality of this. Somehow, I don't think they will overrule Marbury v. Madison.

[Getsmart64]

Ok...so let's hypothesize a minute...they don't call Texas, THE Republic of Texas fer nutin'.....as anti-federalist that Texas is....why did we not hear one inkling of opposition to the SCOTUS's decision from the Texas legislature??....if any state were to make a stand...Texas would....and with a Texan in the WH...would they not have chosen to make a stand against the SCOTUS???....or was there some backroom politics going on even tho quite a bit of the American populace did not agree with their decision???

[trek]

The role of the Supreme Court is to resolve Constitutional disputes between the Executive and the Legislative Branch and to be the final arbiter of judicial disputes. The power of the President to disregard a ruling of the Supreme Court is not unlimited. In fact it is very narrow. If the President were to act in an unconstitutional manner in any regard including a failure to enforce a Constitutional ruling then he would be subject to impeachment by the Congress and removal from office.

But consider the oath of office the President takes. He swears to "obey and defend the Constitution" not the Supreme Court or any other court. The idea of absolute judicial supremacy is a very recent development. Ask yourself this question.

Do you think the Founders were so stupid that they would create an unelected nine man oligarchy with arbitrary and unchecked power to override all the elected branches of government and even the voice of the people?

I don't think so. (And Hamilton bears me out)

[Jim_Curtis]

And wouldn't scotus be the final arbiter on the constitutionality of this law? What a paradox, scotus would rule against the law and congress would need to ignore the constitution to use this scotus-cancelled law to pass ITSELF.

But it is a bit precious to be arguing that the manner of which someone is trying to save a country from certain and fast approaching death is not pristine.

If your nation dies you will not look back in pride saying "well, at least WE were civil, we played by the rule book".

[Timmy]

No it wasn't, not since Marbury v. Madison (1803).

One branch of the government declaring itself arbiter over the others does not make it so. For the record, Thomas Jefferson ignored the court's decision in Marbury vs. Madison. The Constitution clearly states that Congress can limit the juridiction of the Supreme Court in all but a few, specific types of cases.

[BikerNYC]

Do you think the Founders were so stupid that they would create an unelected nine man oligarchy with arbitrary and unchecked power to override all the elected branches of government and even the voice of the people?

The Supreme Court is elected...by the Senate. It is elected, at least, in the same sense that the President is elected, through representatives who themselves are elected.

The founders only permitted 1/6 of the government, the House of Represetatives, to be directly elected by the People. And they are the ones with the shortest stay in government, 2 years.

The founders were quite conservative. The Constitution, as originally drafted, is stacked against the People, and limits their direct choices of those serving in government. The Supreme Court, with lifetime tenure, is the most extreme example of that, and was designed to be a counterweight to the immediate passions of the masses.

If the founders wanted to disallow the Supreme Court from having a say in Constitutional issues (it doesn't have the final say, since the Constitution may be amended), they could have amended the Constitution right after Marbury v. Madison in 1803, when many of the founders were still around. It was way back then when the Court said that it was the final arbiter of what the Constitution means (barring amendment).

[Boiling point]

Why not instead, pass a bill that only allows the SCOTUS to reference the US Constitution! No past precedences may be considered.

[Jim Noble]

It would seem the grand experiment is over.

It's not over.

But it's starting to fail, because the People are not using the power they have of right.

[TheBattman]

Actually it could be more clear - IF it were crystal-clear, then we would already be seeing the results of such powers.

Unfortunately, the Judiciary has been given (if even by default) far more power than the Executive and legislative branch in many matters.

[CapandBall]

Would someone ping The Honorable BillyBob to this thread, I don't have his proper name and I want his opinion.

[BikerNYC]

For the record, Thomas Jefferson ignored the court's decision in Marbury vs. Madison.

Not quite. The Court ruled that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then ruled that the statute authorizing the court to issue such a writ exceeded the Congress' authority under the Constitution and was, therefore, null and void (thus establishing that the Court would determine which laws pass muster under the Constitution). There was no order for the President not to comply with.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress can limit the juridiction of the Supreme Court in all but a few, specific types of cases.

But guess who gets to decide if any particular case falls within that category of "specific types of cases"?