Proposed Amendment to Constitution about Supreme Court

myself ^ | 9/18/2003 | knightforhire.com

[kkindt]

"The Supreme Court created in this constitution, if it should rule a law passed by the Congress and signed by the President, to be unconstitutional, must submit its decision and reasoning to the House of Representatives and the Senate. By a vote of 2/3 the House and Senate may declare the court to be in error and the constitutionality of the law shall be upheld. Furthermore, any previous rulings of this court that a law was unconstitutional that pre-date this amendment may be overuled by a 2/3 vote of the House and Senate."

[kkindt]

How could this be improved, who will support this, why isn't it a good idea and could it be submitted to our present Congress - will you help?

[gcruse]

I don't think so. This subsumes the SC to Congress vis a vis separation of powers. Congress already has the power to amend the Constitution and the USSC must abide by the Constitution. What you want is a neutered USSC. Thanks, but no thanks.

[onedoug]

No amount of persuasion can provide Congress a will it does not have.

[camle]

the whole purpose of the SC lifetime appointment is to remove politics from the judicial process. this will return it. Igor would be president if this was in effect in 2000.

[So Cal Rocket]

Interesting idea. Off the top of my head I can't think of a downside... the other two branches of Gov't can be overturned:

A bill passed by the Legislative Branch can be vetoed by the Executive Branch.

A veto by the Executive Branch can be overturned by a 2/3rds vote in the Legislative Branch.

A bill passed by the Legislative Branch can be found unconstitional by the Judicial Branch.

An Executive Order by the Executive Branch can be found unconstitional by the Judicial Branch.

However, a ruling by the Judicial Branch cannot be challenged within the framework in our current constitution - your proposal will just add another "check" into our system of checks and balances.

Bravo!

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Prohibition, repeal prohibition. That is just messing with some silly little fine print.

This goes right to the very core of the founding father`s vision and that is usually a bad idea.

Doesn`t sound to dissimilar to FDR`s attempt to stack the court in his favour by adding more judges. Even during the Depression and on the eve of WWII the balances kept this country from going in the wrong direction.

Overuling the Supreme Court right now takes a constitutional amendment. That means the congress and the states have to speak up. That is a very high bar and the FF`s wanted it that way. I just don`t think that it`s broke.

[johniegrad]

I have to agree with you. This way the constitutionality of a law is subject to the lawmakers themselves. Since they are elected by a preponderance of votes, it would be more difficult for the Court to protect the constitutionality of a law that might adversely effect a small number of constituents who should be protected by the
Constitution against the tyranny of the majority.

[Spiff]

Unnecessary. The prescription already exists within the Constitution - and that is that Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the Court or remove misbehaving justices. If Congress decides that the Supreme Court is out of control on abortion issues or church/state issues, they can take that jurisdiction away from the Court.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Article III
Section 2 (second pargraph)
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.

Congress already has the power to limit the Supreme Courts decisons.

[yarddog]

I think it is a good idea.

There needs to be re-established some type of check on the judiciary. The constitution did not give them the authority to declare laws unconstitutional. They just gave themselves that right and it has gradually become etched in granite.

Except for the extremely difficult impeachement process there is no way to hold the SP accountable.

I understand the congress does have the authority to remove a law from the SP's authority but for some reason they just won't do it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"However, a ruling by the Judicial Branch cannot be challenged within the framework in our current constitution - your proposal will just add another "check" into our system of checks and balances."

Not true. Congress can, at any time, pass and send to the states an amendment over-ruling any Supreme Court finding. If the states pass it, then the Supreme Court "IS" over-ruled.

[zeugma]

It's not a good idea. Even as dumb as the supreme Court can be, congress is dumber.

One of the big problems with giving such power to congresscritters is that they are much more likely to use this power in what most of us would feel is a negative way. Suppose somehow the supreme Court finally gets off its rear end and actually does something useful like rule that the 2nd amendment is a personal right rather than a collective one. While the congress in session today probably wouldn't be likely to countermand such a ruling, who can say what a future congress might?

[Abe Froman]

If this is an attempt to hold the justices accountable for rulings that run contrary to the clear language of the constitution, then it is futile. The means by which to remove them for their misdeeds already exists (impeachment) and Congress remains completely unwilling to use this power no matter how ridiculous a ruling they decide. No SC or federal circuit court judge has ever been impeached in the history of the republic, to my knowledge.

Giving congress the power to overrule specific decisions will merely bring on a spat between the SC and Congress, and most legislators, unwilling to attempt to remove a judge from office, will be unwilling to roll back their decisions anyway.

[azcap]

Can anyone name a political issue or case that 2/3 of the Congress agree is wrong but that the Supreme Court differs?

[Wolfie]

Checks and Balances? We don't need no stinkin' Checks and Balances!

[Chemist_Geek]

However, a ruling by the Judicial Branch cannot be challenged within the framework in our current constitution

Incorrect; a constituitional amendment may be made (by the Legislature or the several States) to nullify a Supreme Court ruling.

[kkindt]

TO impeach means the Congress MUST take the initiative. The proposed amendment REQUIRES the Supreme Court to submit their decison and reasoning to the Congress and the COngress MUST then vote and act on the matter and either agree with the court or not but it would be required to debate the issue and see if it agreed with the court that its own law was unconstitutional.

[kkindt]

Yes - and this amendment would REQUIRE the court to submit its rulings that a law is unconstitutioanl to the Congress and require the Congress to vote yea or nea. Hence unlike the impeachment procedure that is aimed at a specific justice and the Congress must take the initiative - if this amendment were in place the Court would be required to submit its ruling to the Congress and Congress required to vote yea or no

[kkindt]

THe constitution is missing a check on the Supreme Court - to expect the Congress to impeach a justice or to have to pass an amendment to make some law constitutional is no check at all

[kkindt]

THe constitution is missing a check on the Supreme Court - to expect the Congress to impeach a justice or to have to pass an amendment to make some law constitutional is no check at all - but to REQUIRE the congress to listen to the court's reasoning and then vote as to whether it agrees by 2/3 vote is a good check