Ravenwood - 03/19/04 06:00 AM
Several House lawmakers are planning to introduce a bill that would allow them to overrule the Supreme Court of the United States. With Justices like Sandra Day O'Connor, who ruled that racial discrimination is okay for another 25 years, and once claimed that future rulings should be based on international law rather than the U.S. Constitution (which she is sworn to uphold), this may not be such a bad idea. But even though I don't like the idea of idealogues like O'Connor having little accountability, I don't think that giving a power hungry Congress even more power is the way to go. Besides, the SCOTUS would undoubtedly rule that such a law is unconstitutional.
This is nothing more than a Legislative power grab, and a step closer toward totalitarianism. If they were really worried about rogue justices not upholding their oath of office, they would take steps to remove them. Supreme Court justices are not immune from impeachment, so if legislators are really concerned perhaps they should learn to use their impeachment powers.
FOOTNOTE: To show you how behind the times I am, Say Uncle had this two days ago. He theorizes that it may be Constitutional. The only problem with that is that it is the SCOTUS that says what is Constitutional and what isn't.
Category: Fall of Western Civilization
Comments (7) top link me
Well, as I said in my post, I am not a lawyer, BUT...the Constitution does NOT give the SCOTUS the power to decide what's Constitutional. It DOES give the Congress power to impose "Exceptions and Regulations" on the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
That's why I think, based strictly on the text, that it might be Constitutional.
Posted by: Thibodeaux at March 19, 2004 9:12 AMIt may not give them that power, but they sure seem to have derived it.
Posted by: Ravenwood at March 19, 2004 9:50 AMWell, that's true.
Posted by: Thibodeaux at March 19, 2004 10:31 AMMaybe you are interested in the Reaffirmation of American Independence Resolution? It's just a House Resolution, but every little bit helps:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl24_feeney/courts2.html
"America’s sovereignty and the integrity of our legal process should not be threatened by a jurisprudence predicated upon laws and judicial decisions alien to our Constitution and our system of self-government." (Tom Feeney, resolution sponsor)
I think it's a good idea to allow Congress to hit the "reset" button when courts go overboard. I don't think it's constitutional, however. Stripping courts of jurisdiction is one thing, and setting oneself up as the super-Supreme Court is another.
In any event, given the 2/3 requirement, it makes little sense to worry about Congress running amok. If they have that level of support, chances are they can pass a constitutional amendment if need be. Simply stripping a controversial case of its precedential value and requiring the next court to reconsider the arguments from scratch would be a relatively modest solution.
Posted by: Xrlq at March 19, 2004 5:12 PMAn Amendment requires not only 2/3 of each house of Congress, but ratification by 3/4 of the states.
Posted by: Ravenwood at March 19, 2004 9:29 PMOf course. It's pretty tough, though, to persuade a 2/3 supermajority of each house to go along with an issue too controversial for a simple majority of 3/4 of the state legislatures. I can only think of three instances where this has happened: (1) the ERA, which the courts made unnecessary with their ever more expansive interpretation of the 14th Amendment, (2) the original, proposed First Amendment, which was never ratified, and arguably, (3) the original Second Amendment, which took two centuries to ratify (it was finally ratified in 1992, when it became the 27th Amendment).
Posted by: Xrlq at March 21, 2004 5:54 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
