±
"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty." 
Toward FREEDOM
Posted on 3/19/2004, 6:11:11 AM by JohnHuang2
There is a move a foot in the Congress to essentially change the way the United States Constitution is amended. Eleven Republican congressmen have decided that the old system of congressional passage coupled with state ratification is just too cumbersome for this enlightened age. Their idea? To simply allow the House and Senate to amend our Constitution with a simple two-thirds majority vote.
We’ll cover the methodology in a moment; first the motivation. These 11 stalwart defenders of our constitution, led by Representative Ron Lewis (R-KY) have decided that they’ve had it up to just about here (gesturing around my eyebrows) with what they call judicial activism. They are particularly concerned over the prospects of legal gay marriage. I think it would also be safe to say that they are less than thrilled over the prospect of the phrase “under God” being taken out of our Pledge of Allegiance.
Fair enough. The Supreme Court has been a bit feisty in the last few decades. Some think they’ve taken Al Gores “The Constitution should be a living, breathing document” routine a bit far. In the mid-1990s the court breathed the idea into our body of Constitutional law that local governments could take your home away from you and transfer it to some heavy campaign contributors who promise to bulldoze the house you were born and raised in and replace it with a cluster-mansion that will pay more in property taxes. Somehow I missed that part of the Constitution when I was studying law.
I do remember seeing something in the Constitution about amendments though. Perhaps Representative Lewis has heard of it. It seems the people of this country, acting through their federal and local elected officials, can amend the Constitution if they feel that the courts have gone just a bit too far in their activist roles.
Well, here’s what Lewis and his 11 Republican cohorts have dreamed up. Just last week they introduced H.R. 3920 which they call the “Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004. This legislation would allow the congress to overturn any Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of an act of Congress by a two-thirds majority vote. Simply put, H.R. 3920 would allow the Congress of the United States to amend our Constitution by a two-third vote of both houses. No involvement from the Executive branch, and no vetting through the states and the people. Just pass a law, wait for the Supremes to declare it unconstitutional, and then amend the Constitution with your two-thirds vote.
This might seem like a wonderful idea to Republicans at a time when they control both houses. But … consider this scenario. Let’s say the people of the United States suddenly succumb to a nationwide epidemic of mad voter disease and place the Democrats in full and complete control of both houses. The Democrats immediately pass a law making it a felony for any private citizen in the United States to own a firearm. Since government is the only entity in our system entitled to use force to accomplish its goals, the Democrats reason that government should be the only entity with the means to exert force. Along comes the Supreme Court and, in a rare exercise of reasonable Constitutional interpretation, declares the law to be at variance with the dictates of the Second Amendment. The Democrats merely produce their two-third votes in the Senate and the House and, voila, the Constitution is amended!
Consider another scenario: The entire congress, mindful of its constant struggle for self-preservation, passes a law stating that all congressional and Senatorial terms shall be for life. As soon as the court declares this absurdity to be unconstitutional the House and Senate votes almost unanimously to overrule the Supreme Court … and once again the Constitution is amended.
H.R. 3920 is, of course, going absolutely nowhere. It’s the Dennis Kucinich of legislation. A somewhat nutty one percent might consider taking this tramp to dinner, but nobody’s going to pick up the check. These Republicans are merely staking out some election-year territory in which they can claim to be the saviors of the American family and all that good and right with the world.
The outrage here is that eleven Republican members of the Congress of the United States have so little regard and respect for our Constitution that they would actually put their names on this insult. You would normally expect this depraved behavior from Democrats or the local mob. The offense, though, is so grave the guilty parties must be identified. See if one of these names is familiar to you. We have Lewis of Kentucky, Howard of North Carolina, DeMint of South Carolina, Kingston and Collins of Georgia, Everett of Alabama, Dolittle and Pombo of California, Franks of Arizona, Hefley of Colorado, Goode of Virginia and Pitts of Pennsylvania.
During this election year, when we have the likes of John Kerry plotting to surrender the sovereignty of the United States to the machinations of the United Nations, our Constitution needs every friend it can get. Lewis’s eleven don’t fit the bill.
What did he say that was incorrect?
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
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.
His thesis is that the Supreme Court is Mount Olympus and that Congress can not make exceptions to what they can rule on or regulate them.
I still don't see that but I'll take your word for it.
±
"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty." Toward FREEDOM
Section 2. The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
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.
I would interpret all other cases before mentioned to refer to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party , not to the cases in the first paragraph.
Otherwise, it negates Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
IOW, Congress is limited to restricting the Supreme Court in regard to ambassadors, public ministers, etc., and only in its appellate authority as to law and fact.
Because they don't have the balls too take on the judges directly. And since they won't. I doubt they plan to enforce any of this that they are purposing in a matter in which would the actually help the law-abiding citizens of this nation.
For example, if this is passed and the next day the Supreme Court declared the IRS unconstitutional, the Congress with just override the decision.
Because they don't have the balls too take on the judges directly.
It was a rhetorical question.
The previous sentence says that cases "affecting ambassadors etc." are those in which the SC has original jurisdiction. This sentence therefore cannot grant appellate jurisdiction to the same cases. That would be absurd.
Consequently, it is clear that Congress cannot limit the SC's (original) jurisdiction with regard to ambassadors, etc., and that Congrss can limit the SC's (appellate) jurisdiction with regard to "all cases, in law and equity, etc.".
That said, I think that this proposed bill is silly. Congress should not pretend that it can vote itself the power to declare that something is constitutional, and, as the earlier poster pointed out, with the same majority it could simply impeach a Supreme Court justice which it felt had rendered an outrageous decision.
Actually, as I reread this, you may be right.
Still, it doesn't make sense that Congress could govern the USSC in matters that the United States is a party to. It allows Congress to stack the deck.
I would interpret all other cases before mentioned to refer to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party , not to the cases in the first paragraph.
" 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. "
That means no lower court is allowed to hear these cases.. ( at least, according to the constitution..)
It cannot be taken "literally" however, because if the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction in all cases in which a state is a party, then "State of Vermont vs. John Jones" would have to be heard in the Supreme Court..
Obviously, the States have a lower court jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases within their borders and environs. Likewise, County and Municipal Courts are accorded the same authority, with subsequent appellate authority residing in the appropriate "superior" courts.
Thus, Section 1.
All others can and should be heard by lower courts, as referred to in Section 1.. Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
In the case of lower courts and the judicial decisions they make, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction.
This includes situations defined in the 1st paragraph, such as ...all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;...to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;( with exception for cases in which a state may be a party )... between citizens of different states...( with a "possible" exception for the instance cited of citizens (of the same state)claiming lands under grants from different states ) .. as well as criminal law, civil law, federal and state law where it applies to the bill of rights, and other laws concerning the rights of individuals or corporations, etc., etc., etc...
Now, with respect to those appellate courts, and the law, Section 2. states,...
... Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Therefore, congress has the power to set the rules, "exceptions", and regulations, under which those courts will operate, by passing laws which those courts must respect and operate under.
Likewise, with exception for those cases where the Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction", the Supreme Court itself is bound by such exceptions, and regulations as the congress shall make.
The Congress already has the power to tell the Supreme Court what the constitution means.
The Supreme Court has the responsibility of ruling on law and fact according to the constitution, not "interpreting" the constitution itself.
Interpretation of the constitution (and it's amendment) is a power reserved to "the people" and their elected representatives.
The backers of this amendment are using the crisis with judicial activism as an excuse to push an entirely different agenda. They need to be kept under close scrutiny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.