It sure is noisy in here!

March 20, 2002 | Texasforever

[Texasforever]

The noise level in the forum needs to abate so issues can be discussed on their merits and not deliberate misrepresentation of this President’s, motives, decisions and conservative credentials. The decisions Bush has made on the immigration reform act and the CFR are not the same decisions I would have made but they are principled decisions not based on polls or focus groups. For those of you that hold principle as your standard I would think that would be a plus in your assessment but I guess when your ox is being gored, the presence of principle is not as important an attribute as you claim.

I see the same misrepresentation of Bush’s positions on the CFR as I saw on the IRA. The charges are being thrown right and left that he “lied” to us as a candidate when he said he opposed campaign finance reform and is now doing a “read my lips” part two. When the thread that called for a “freep” of the President was posted a few days ago I said I was willing to do so because I don’t like CFR any more than the rest of you but I also asked the author of the thread if anyone had done a comparison to the bill that is now passed with Bush’s positions during the campaign. I was told that was a good idea and that such a comparison would be forthcoming. I waited until last night and nothing was done so I went looking on my own and found Bush’s plan after getting the nomination and 90% of what he wanted and advocated is in the new bill, He has not reneged on a campaign promise he let all of us know his position well in advance, I have attached that plan along with the applicable sections in the CFR that was passed today. It would be nice if Bush had the line-item veto so he could excise the bad parts but he does not and will rely on the courts to do it for him.

I have no illusions that this will sway any of the newly “disaffected” Bush supporters but to those of you that actually wish to criticize in a rational manner, I hope this helps.

Summary of Governor Bush's Campaign Finance Proposal

On February 15, 2000, Texas governor George W. Bush, the eventual winner of the Republican Party's presidential nomination, outlined a campaign finance reform proposal that he claimed would "increase citizen participation, return honor to our system, and restore confidence in our democracy." The proposal consists of a package of reforms that include a partial ban on soft money donations, an increase in individual contribution limits to candidates, restrictions on labor union political activities, a ban on the solicitation of contributions from federally registered lobbyists while Congress is in session, and disclosure of contributions on the Internet. The primary objective of these reforms is to protect the rights of individual citizens and groups to make contributions to political campaigns and otherwise express their views in the political process. The reforms also seek to preserve the integrity of the political process by placing new restrictions on contributions, and requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

back to top Restricting Soft Money and "Paycheck Protection"

The Bush proposal calls for a partial ban on soft money contributions to political parties. It would prohibit corporate and labor union soft money donations, but would continue to allow individual soft money contributions. In recent election cycles, more than two-thirds of the soft money raised by the national party organizations came from corporate and labor union funds, so the proposed change would have a significant effect in reducing the amount of soft money raised at the national level. The Governor's plan thus calls for more stringent regulation of soft money than the proposals advanced by Republican leaders in recent congresses, but it is less comprehensive than the total ban on soft money donations included in the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan bills. Covered in SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

The plan also restricts the monies used by labor unions for political activities by incorporating a "paycheck protection" provision that would grant union members a right to decide whether a portion of their dues would be used for political purposes. In this way it seeks to promote the principle that all monies used in federal political campaigns should be voluntarily contributed. Bush's proposal thus reaches beyond the provisions of McCain-Feingold or other similar reform packages, which recognize the right of non-union members to consent to the use of their dues for political purposes, by extending this practice to union members as well. A "paycheck protection" provision of this kind has been advocated by Republican leaders in recent congresses, but is generally considered a "poison pill" guaranteeing the defeat of any reform plan by Democrats. Moreover, unlike the "paycheck protection" proposal drafted by Senate Republicans Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snowe in the 105th Congress, the Bush proposal includes no comparable provision offering corporate shareholders an opportunity to consent to the use of corporate treasury funds for political purposes. Covered in SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR ELECTIONEERING

Bush had already taken care of the paycheck protection problem his first month in office with the following Executive order

Four executive orders were issued by President Bush on February 17, 2001, which the Administration stated "are based on the principles of fair and open competition, neutrality in government contracting, effective and efficient use of tax dollars and the legal right of workers to be notified of how their dues may be used." Reacting to the reports, AFL – CIO President John Swenney issued a statement saying he was "appalled and outraged" by the decision to issue "four mean-spirited, anti-worker executive orders." One order would require government contractors to notify employees of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 holding in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, "affirming the right of workers to be notified and object, if they so chose, to their union dues being used for purposes other than collective bargaining." Government contractors will be required to post notices informing union–represented workers of their rights under the Beck decision. A similar Executive order was signed in 1992 by the President's father, which was rescinded in early 1993 by former President Clinton.

back to top Preserving Individual Participation

In addition to allowing individual soft money contributions, the Bush plan seeks to preserve the First Amendment rights of individuals to participate in the financing of campaigns by other means. The proposal calls for an increase in the amount an individual may contribute to a federal candidate by adjusting the current limit for inflation, which would raise the current limit of $1,000 per election to approximately $3,300 per election. Covered inSEC. 211. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE and SEC. 307. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. All individual and independent limits raised.

Furthermore, Bush would place no restrictions on issue advocacy; rather, his plan affirms the right of individuals and groups to run issue advocacy advertisements without being subject to federal regulation. Covered under SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS. And `(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term `electioneering communication' does not include—

ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act;

back to top Eliminating "Rollover" Transfers

Governor Bush also wants to preserve "donor choice" by eliminating the ability of federal candidates to transfer or "roll over" excess campaign funds from a prior bid for federal office to a subsequent campaign for a different federal office. Current law allows a federal candidate to transfer an unlimited amount raised for one federal campaign to another; for example, a senator running for president can transfer any amount of excess campaign money from a previous senate race to a presidential campaign fund. The Bush plan would end this practice to ensure that monies raised from donors who support a candidate for one office are not used to finance a subsequent campaign that donors may not support.

back to top Limiting the Solicitation of Contributions from Lobbyists

One reform offered by Bush that has not been included in the campaign finance legislation that has reached the floor in recent sessions of Congress is a prohibition on the solicitation of contributions during legislative sessions. Under Bush's proposal, Members of Congress would be prohibited from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions from federally registered lobbyists while Congress is in session. In other words, members will only be allowed to solicit or accept gifts from these individuals when Congress is in recess. The purpose of this provision is to safeguard the legislative process from improper conduct or actions that create an appearance of impropriety. It is modeled on similar provisions that have been adopted in some states, including Texas, which prohibits campaign contributions during the legislative session.

back to top Improving Disclosure

During the presidential prenomination period, the Bush campaign has been posting donor information on the campaign's Internet site on a weekly basis. This practice would become a requirement of federal law under the Bush proposal in an effort to make information on campaign donors available to the electorate in a more timely manner. The Governor's plan would amend current law on disclosure and electronic filing to require candidates to disclose on the Internet all campaign contributions within one week of their receipt. Under current FEC rules, candidates for the presidential nomination file quarterly reports during the off-election year and monthly reports during the election year Covered in TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Did you read this one in your studies?

No, my course was entirely based on SCOTUS case law, and as I said, as far as I know there has been no case law on this subject.

[michigander]

What makes you think I didn't understand that?

This is what did it for me:

reply 64:
Bush said his opinion is that certain parts are unconstitutional, BUT the president is NOT the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional the Supreme Court is. I do NOT want a president of ANY party making those decisions. That ain't his job.

reply81:
On policy grounds as they always do. The president takes an oath to preserve and to defend the constitution NOT to interpret law. Declaring a bill unconstitutional is a legal decision that the president does not posses. He can speak his mind and he can have his Solicitor General mount a challenge to a law that he likes except for the parts he feels are unconstitutional. I sure as hell do not want one man having constitutional veto. That is not protecting and defending the constitution.. Policy and those disputes are fine.

---

Article I

Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

---

If as you state, "his opinion is that certain parts are unconstitutional", it most certainly is within his job description to veto this bill, note his objections and return the bill to the House.

That is NOT interpreting law. It is NOT making a declaration of any kind.

IMHO, it is the manner the President is supposed to be speaking his mind in these cases and that "in my opinion these parts of this bill are constitutionally questionable. 1,2,3,..." would be a legitimate objection.
The Congress is within its power to override his veto or they can change the bill and start the process over again.
There is no chance of one branch of governement or "one man having constitutional veto" over a bill.

[itsahoot]

How about this recent EO? Second paragraph."not Subject to
Judicial Review

Bush Orders Military Tribunals for Noncitizens Accused of Terrorist Acts

 

IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY

Removal Procedures and Defenses

 

 

BUSH ORDERS MILITARY TRIBUNALS FOR NONCITIZENS ACCUSED OF TERRORIST ACTS
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 15, No. 8, Dec. 20, 2001

Drawing on his authority as commander-in-chief, President George W. Bush has signed an executive order allowing the use of military tribunals to try non-U.S. citizens accused of international terrorism. In issuing the order, which dispenses with the "principles of law and . . . rules of evidence generally recognized . . . by the U.S. district courts" in criminal trials, he cited the "extraordinary emergency" created by the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The Nov. 13, 2001, order has been the subject of intense controversy. It has elicited criticism from civil libertarians, immigrants' rights advocates, and lawmakers concerned with its sharp departure from longstanding principles and procedures of American jurisprudence. For example, the order appears to authorize tribunals to conduct proceedings outside public scrutiny, reach convictions on two-thirds majority votes, and issue sentences-even the death penalty-that are not subject to judicial review. In addition, some observers have pointed out that the order's death penalty provision may be affecting the support of some allies for the U.S.'s antiterrorism efforts. A number of European governments that do not sanction capital punishment have already stated that they will refuse requests to extradite individuals arrested in connection with the September 11 attacks.

Who is Affected by the Order? The executive order covers any individual who is not a U.S. citizen, who the president finds reason to believe is or was a member of the Al Quaeda organization. Also subject are persons who have "engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism. . .that have caused, threaten to cause," or are intended to cause "injury to or adverse effects on the U.S., its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or the economy." Individuals who participate in activities in preparation for such terrorist acts are also subject to the order, as well as are persons who harbor members of Al Quaeda or others who have engaged in terrorist acts.

Such individuals must be detained, either inside or outside the U.S., and they must be treated humanely and provided adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, and medical attention. They must also be allowed, within the confines of their detention, to freely exercise their religion.

Military tribunals are authorized to try individuals for any and all offenses that they have allegedly committed that are covered by the order. Such individuals may be punished according to applicable law, including life imprisonment and, as noted above, the death penalty.

The Secretary of Defense' s Authority under the Order. The secretary of Defense is directed to appoint one or more military commissions and issue orders and regulations for conducting military tribunals. These rules must include provisions describing pretrial, trial and, post-trial procedures; modes of proof; issuance of process; and qualifications of attorneys. These regulations are to provide for

• military commissions to sit at any time and place;
• "full and fair trials," with the military commission sitting as trier of fact and law;
• admission of evidence that, in the opinion of the presiding officer, would have "probative value to a reasonable person" (at the time the presiding officer renders the opinion, a commission member may request that the commission adopt the opinion of the commission majority on the evidence at issue;
• the handling of evidence, material, or other information and the conducting and closing of proceedings in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12958 of Apr. 17, 1995 (which is concerned with classified national security information) and with related statutes and regulations;
• the conduct of the prosecution by one or more attorneys designated by the secretary of Defense and the conduct of the defense by attorneys on behalf of the individual subject to the order;
• convictions requiring only a two-thirds majority of commission members present at the time of the vote (a majority of the commission must be present for the vote);
• sentencing that also requires only a two-thirds majority of commission members present at the time of the vote (a majority of the commission must also be present for this vote); and
• submission of the trial record, including any conviction or sentence, for review and final decision by the president or the secretary of Defense, if so designated by the president.

Exclusive Jurisdiction and Relationship to Other Laws. In addition, under the order, military tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over individuals subject to this order. They may not seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, in any court of the United States, any state court, any court of any foreign nation, or any international tribunal.

Finally, the order specifies that nothing in it shall be construed to authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not authorized to have access to them; to limit the authority of the president to grant reprieves or pardons; or to limit the secretary of Defense's authority to try any person who is not subject to this order. Nor may it be interpreted to create any right, benefit, or privilege, enforceable at law or equity, by any party against the U.S., or any of its departments, agencies, or other entities.

Bush Order, "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism" (Nov. 13, 2001); published at 66 Fed. Reg. 57,831-36 (Nov. 16, 2001).

 

Home | What's New | About NILC | Publications | Community Education Materials
Immigrants & Employment | Immigrants & Public Benefits | Immigration Law & Policy
Trainings | Links
California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

How about this recent EO?

I am certain the SCOTUS would not grant certiori to any appeal from this order, because of the respect it gives to the powers of the Commander in Chief in Wartime, so the question of judicial review would remain moot.

[American Gal In America]

If Bush feels part of the bill is unconstutional, then he should veto it and not rely on the SCOTUS.

Agreed. That is the bottom line.

[itsahoot]

How about this little zinger, not during war time?

In related news, President Clinton issued a new executive order on federalism on Wednesday (8/4) that replaces a largely unenforced federalism executive order from the Reagan Administration. The order calls on agencies to consider federalism impacts and to consult with state and local officials as part of their rulemakings. Unlike the federalism legislation, however, the executive order is not subject to judicial review.

This stuff goes on all the time guys, and this is not even congress.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Unlike the federalism legislation, however, the executive order is not subject to judicial review.

As far as I know everything is subject to judicial review until the SCOTUS says it is not. And it has never said it about anything.

[Molly Pitcher]

Texas, you've made an effort here, and it isn't bad, but the problem is I didn't sleep thru the campaign, nor the first year+ of the President's administration.

I DO remember what he said and wrote on "CFR".

Isn't it disturbing to you that in the statement issued yesterday, Bush declares he'll sign the bill, despite constitutional concerns??

Sen. Thompson made similar statements on the Senate floor yesterday and was rightly mocked.

Now I'm going to wait to see what Bush further says and does at the signing ceremony, and then make my final judgment.

[itsahoot]

There are currently 50 bills pending in congress that have the
phrase "Not subject to Judicial Review" in them, I hve provided the
links, you can read them.

---

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search
Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Help
                Doc Contents      

---

50 Bills from the 107th Congress ranked by relevance on"not subject to judicial review ".

       50 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
       0 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
       0 bills containing all your search words but not near each other.
       0 bills containing one or more of your search words.

---

Listing of 50 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.

1 . Small Business Liability Protection Act (Referred in Senate)[H.R.1831.RFS]
2 . Small Business Liability Protection Act (Engrossed in House )[H.R.1831.EH]
3 . Small Business Liability Protection Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.1064.IS]
4 . Small Business Liability Protection Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1831.IH]
5 . Small Business Liability Protection Act (Reported in the House)[H.R.1831.RH]
6 . Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1088.IH]
7 . Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 1696) entitled `An Act to expedite the construction of the World War II memorial in the District of Columbia.', do... (Engrossed Senate Amendment)[H.R.1696.EAS]
8 . To expedite the construction of the World War II memorial in the District of Columbia. (Enrolled Bill)[H.R.1696.ENR]
9 . Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act (Reported in the House)[H.R.1088.RH]
10 . Municipal Solid Waste Flow Control Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1214.IH]
11 . Emergency Power Production and Consumer Protection Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1664.IH]
12 . Housing Affordability Assurance Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2753.IH]
13 . Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2001 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.1346.IS]
14 . Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act (Engrossed in House )[H.R.1088.EH]
15 . Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1956.IH]
16 . Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act (Enrolled Bill)[H.R.1088.ENR]
17 . Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act (Placed on the Calendar in the Senate)[H.R.1088.PCS]
18 . Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2001 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.1751.IS]
19 . Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2001 (Placed on the Calendar in the Senate)[S.1748.PCS]
20 . To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize disability retirement to be granted posthumously for members of the Armed Forces who die in the line of duty while on active duty,... (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2203.IH]
21 . To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize disability retirement to be granted posthumously for members of the Armed Forces who die in the line of duty while on active duty,... (Introduced in the Senate)[S.1427.IS]
22 . To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize disability retirement to be granted posthumously for members of the Armed Forces who die in the line of duty while on active duty,... (Introduced in the Senate)[S.1037.IS]
23 . Fairness in Securities Transactions Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1311.IH]
24 . Fairness in Securities Transactions Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1480.IH]
25 . Embassy Employee Compensation Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.3375.IH]
26 . Oklahoma City Victims Compensation Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.3633.IH]
27 . National Disaster Medical System Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2333.IH]
28 . 1993 World Trade Center Victims Compensation Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.3978.IH]
29 . Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 2001 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.1194.IS]
30 . To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to permit a State to register a Canadian pesticide for distribution and use within that State. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1084.IH]
31 . Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 2002 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.2034.IS]
32 . Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Received in the Senate)[H.R.2869.RDS]
33 . Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Enrolled Bill)[H.R.2869.ENR]
34 . Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Engrossed in House )[H.R.2869.EH]
35 . Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2869.IH]
36 . To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to permit a State to register a Canadian pesticide for distribution and use within that State. (Introduced in the Senate)[S.532.IS]
37 . School Environment Protection Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.111.IH]
38 . Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.141.IS]
39 . Acid Rain Control Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.588.IS]
40 . Acid Rain Control Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.25.IH]
41 . Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001 (Placed on the Calendar in the Senate)[S.235.PCS]
42 . Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.39.IH]
43 . Water Investment Act of 2002 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.1961.IS]
44 . Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001 (Engrossed in Senate)[S.235.ES]
45 . Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001 (Referred in House)[S.235.RFH]
46 . Competitive Market Supervision Act of 2001 (Reported in the Senate)[S.143.RS]
47 . Competitive Market Supervision Act of 2001 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.143.IS]
48 . Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001 (Placed on the Calendar in the Senate)[S.1246.PCS]
49 . Health Care Antitrust Improvements Act of 2002 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.3897.IH]
50 . Family Farmer Cooperative Marketing Amendments Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.230.IH]

---

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search
Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Help
                Doc Contents      

---

[FranklinsTower]

Truly awsome! What makes it even better is that I agree with every word of it.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

See #287.

[rdb3]

I just pick my allies where I can find them on important issues. Even loony Byrd can be right about some issues.

You're getting the political angle of this correct, but Byrd is "right" on this issue for all the wrong reasons.

Truth is, he's not your (our) ally at all. What Byrd's true angle is to maintain the status quo on immigration. That is bad for America overall, but the status quo does help Democrats.

This legislation at least attempts to address the immigration problem. You have to start somewhere.

[hchutch]

Thank Jim Jeffords for a lot of it. Thank the third-party types who helped Harry Reid beat John Ensign in 1998 and who siphoned enough votes from Slade Gorton to give Maria Cantwell that Senate seat in Washington.

That probably kept us from winning two Senate seats. Had we taken Reid's seat, and had we kept Gorton in, then I think it is safe to say this would not have happened.

[Lazamataz]

It sure is noisy in here!

I think everyone should just shut up around here and believe like I do.

[itsahoot]

Uncle already! I have emailed Bob Dornan for refrence to his comment. If he
replies I will get back to you.

I will note again, that the congress has the power to
abolish the Supreme Court or even the executive branch or both
through constitutional ammendment.
No such power is vested in the Supreme court to abolish
the congress or executive branch, they can neuter them however.
Therefore they are not really co-equal [:«)

[Dales]

Don't I know it.

Ugh.

[hchutch]

The fact is, I have long ago resigned myself to the fact that this is something we have to treat like a baseball season. It's 162 games, and you have to keep pushing for as high a win percentage as possible, and improving your team every go-around to do better and avenge past losses.

That's how the Founding Fathers designed the system. I assume they knew what they were doing.

[Texasforever]

Thanks for the links but I have to ask, did you go through them to see the context? There is nothing at all that prevents the legislation itself being challenged in court. The list of links also contain numerous repetitions of the same legislation.

Now having said that, you did give me some reason for pause. I can think of several instances in which the Congress or the Executive could be immune from Court review. One would be a Congressional Declaration of War. As to Executive orders they are and have been subject to court challenge. Let's make sure we are on the same page here. The Federal Courts single contribution to the 3 legged stool is to decide the constitutional soundness of the laws passed and enforced by the Legislature and the Executive. If you ask the sponsors of any legislation ever passed if they thought their bill was unconstitutional they would of course deny it as would all that voted for it or the president that signed it. The only way to ensure "unconstitutional" are never passed or signed is to attach criminal jeopardy to all that vote in favor of them. In other words, NEVER pass any law.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I will note again, that the congress has the power to abolish the Supreme Court or even the executive branch or both through constitutional ammendment.

This is to say that the congress, with the assistance of the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions, has the power to change everything in the Constitution, except eliminate the equal representation in the US Senate. They could eliminate Congress (but not the Senate, I guess), make the US a hereditary monarchy, establish Islam as the state religion, make one race the lifetime slaves of another race, etc.

I do not think that any of those proposals, or yours, would get very far in the process though, do you?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

In other words, NEVER pass any law.

NOW you are talking, LOL!