Checks and balances? What are those?

[lederhosen]

Can't link to this directly, but you can find it by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/ (redirect from http://www.congress.gov) and pasting in H.R.3920.IH as the bill number.



Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004 (Introduced in House)

HR 3920 IH

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.



AFAICT, this translates to: "If the US Supreme Court judges that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional, Congress may reverse that judgement."

Can we all see why this is a stupendously bad idea?

Edit: Oh, and while you're there, check out H.R. 3799, which has rather bizarrely been titled the "Constitution Restoration Act":

'Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'

Katherine Yurica has some interesting background material on this one.

Comments

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

We can without even resorting to symbolic logic. Ewp?

[tamahori]

I'm not from the US, so I may need to check on this one, but isn't the basic theory that the President, Congress and Supreme Court all act as checks on each other?
Am I reading this right in that it means that Congress will be able to 'and the horse you rode in on' to the Court?

I'm just trying to work out if this is, as it seems from my quick reading, trying to break one of the fundamental supports that the US runs on?

Brett, who is confused, and bad at reading legal jargon.

[panacea1.livejournal.com]

1) Yes.
2) Yup.
3) Uh hunh.


Note, however, that this is merely proposed legislation and has not passed the House; furthermore, if it did, it would also have to pass the Senate.

What would be really interesting is, if that unfortunate situation came to pass, and the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional as they would pretty much have to... whose heads would explode first?

Oh, my country... oh, my people...

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's exactly what it is. Pat Robertson (influential televangelist) is of the opinion that the courts should be subservient to the legislature, and that the Constitution was never intended to require separation between Church & State. These bills seem to come straight from the wish-list of the 700 Club.

[djfiggy.livejournal.com]

Tension to kill, rising...

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

Just when I think that Congress can't get any more stupid and petty.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Worse than pettiness. Despite appearances, this isn't some knee-jerk reaction against gay marriage. Pat Robertson has been lobbying to eliminate the Supreme Court's role as a check on Congress for the last twenty years, and by the look of it the gay-marriage issue is just a handy excuse for a much bigger power-grab.