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

[CapandBall]

So the Legislative branch want to override the Judicary? There is some stuff coming out of the courts that I don't like, but this is not the solution.

[Clint Williams]

It would seem the grand experiment is over.

[gitmo]

Please explain. SCOTUS has taken the interpretation of COTUS from the Congress. This was historically their responsibility.

[jwalsh07]

What is the solution to an out of control judiciary?

[richnwise]

If all this does is to wake up the American people to activism that is unprecidented in the history of the Court, whose job is to only interpret the law, not write it, then this introduction of the bill will have done its job. I hope and pray that someday, our laws will be restored to pre-Roe-v-Wade, Texas Sodomy and multiple other written laws that the Court has had it's hands in. Here, Here!!

[freedomcrusader]

Furthermore, I see absolutely nothing in Article III, Section 2, that actually gives Congress the power to pass such a law.

[Raymond Hendrix]

Where is Andrew Jackson now that we need him??

[cincinnati65]

I believe that the separation of powers in the Constitution are clearly stated enough that this would likely require a Constitutional amendment. Could you imagine the Supreme Court having to hear a case on the Constitutionality of this law?

[Centurion2000]

So the Legislative branch want to override the Judicary?

The courts need a check to their power, right now there is not one. Also if it has a supermajority in both Legislative houses is is one step shy of an Amendment which the Courts cannot overturn.

I think this is a good idea.

[cripplecreek]

Here are a couple of sites with info regaurding judicial accountability and jurors rights.


www.jail4judges.org

www.fija.org

I have learned that an 1895 supreme court decision declared that jurors need not be informed of their rights. Think about that for a minute.

[general_re]

Article III Section 2 requires a great deal of contorting before you can construe it to allow such thing. Not that it matters - this will die in committee and never even garner a floor vote in the House. And that's just fine with Congress - after all, they're perfectly happy to let the courts serve as the whipping boy for controversial decisions, and arrogating this power unto themselves means that they get to take the heat in the future. And what Congressman wants that? There are elections to think about, in the end, and that's far more important than acting as a curb on the judiciary...

[trek]

"It would seem the grand experiment is over"

Don't be ridiculous. This legislation is not even needed. The Executive has always had a narrowly defined power to reject Supreme Court decisions that violate the Constitution. Go read Federalist 78.

Federalist 78 (Hamilton):

“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments”.

It could not be more clear. The Courts were assumed by the Founders to be the weakest branch not because they believed the Courts would always act responsibly but because the Constitution gives the Courts no independent enforcement powers.

[lindagirl]

This is the only way to get control of an out of control judiciary. Maybe it needs to be a constitutional admendment.

[Lawgvr1955]

I see to major problems here:

1. The SCOTUS will find this law unconstitutional and a) Congress lets it ride or b) we have a constitutional crisis.

2. Even if this law passes, the decisions of the Supreme Court rarely are just a thumbs up or down on some piece of legislation. Like we saw in the Gore v. Bush decision, a SCOTUS ruling has many parts and facets. It would be difficult in many cases for Congress to draft a bill that would address all parts of a SCOTUS decision.

[Lawgvr1955]

to = two

[Tribune7]

So the Legislative branch want to override the Judicary?

No, the elected leglislative branch wants to override the appointed-for-life legislative branch that calls itself "the Judicary," and it's about time.

[BikerNYC]

SCOTUS has taken the interpretation of COTUS from the Congress. This was historically their responsibility.

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

To permit the Congress to overrule SCOTUS by passing a law would make the process to amend the Constitution superfluous. Moreover, it also cuts the states out of the amendment process, since the Congress would not need the consent of the States to change a provision of the Constitution. This could not have been what the framer's intended.

[Lawgvr1955]

Courts no independent enforcement powers.

A true and not true observation.

The courts enforce their rulings by contempt citations, injunctions, etc. However, they ultimately rely on the acquiesense of the executive and legislative branches and society in general to "agree" to follow court pronouncements.

That is why the case of Sirica v. Nixon is so important. If President Nixon had told Judge Sirica to stick it in his ear on the issue of executive privilege, how could anyone have actually have forced Nixon to comply? He was the Commander in Chief of the military and Congress and the courts had no armies. The fact that Nixon blinked may have saved the country.

[Smartass]

It's about time the the Courts have a check and balance.
So far, the federal court system has had it their way.
They have rewritten our Constitution and have
been playing the role of executive branch, and
legislature. Time for them to be reeled in!!!

BUSH & CHENEY IN 2004