Congress trying to override Supreme Court (???)

Has anyone seen this bill? (link)

Evidently, it would give Congress the power to override a ruling of the Supreme Court if they didn't like it.

I should think, though, that such a measure would need a Constitutional Amendment to be legal (and this isn't an Amendment). So what happens when the Supreme Court declares this unconstitutional? An infinite loop?

Oh well, so much for checks and balances ...


(Edit: Link didn't work)
(Edit #2: Link seems to still not work ... here's the address: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:/)

n/t

I fixed it (I think it was the automatic emoticon parsing of the message board software)

Just another Rethuglican shill trying to destroy the Constitution and the checks and balances in the country.

Try this link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:

These things are always in flux.

The Republicans would piss their pants when a Democratic dominated congress overruled something they were excited about.

Didn't they want to outlaw filibustering too some months back?

These idiots might be blind with power, but as soon as someone reminds them they won't be in power forever (provided they can digest this tidbit of information - maybe if they only use one and two syllable words) they'll back off.

I don't see this going anywhere fast.

so the court cant pass law over riding christian religion and i heard they were making an amendment

to mind...

It's a republican run congress and if the democrats take a few seats back and are the majority, I don't think the republicans would want the Dem's to override the Supreme Court.

Second, the Supreme Court is right-wing partisan already (partisan politics should never come into play, as it did in Florida).

Third, an Amendment would take more than a simple majority in congress and at least two thirds in the Senate to completely change the Constitution.

Again, I have not read the article, the link did not work.

One branch of government cannot make a unilateral decision to bypass or change the checks and balances set up by the Constitution.

So what happens when the Supreme Court reminds Congress of this (assuming the bill passes)?

The SC will say it's unconstitutional, Congress will override them, SC will say that their overriding is still unconstitutional, Congress will override that ... ad infinitum.

The only way they could do that is for a constitutional amendment to be passed, which requires the approval of 2/3(?) of states as well.
Now, if congress ignores the Court, then we have VERY big problems on our hands.

Dubya in the White House!

composer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



dp

pursuant to what powers? Since when do they get to do this?

Seriously, once the bill is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (which it will be), it's an immediate constitutional crisis. Who's going to support Congress? They have no argument. It may be a warning shot across the bow, but as policy it's stillborn.

There is a way under the Constitution for Congress to deal with some decisions but it is ugly and cumbersome. Basically, Congress can under certain circumstances limit the jurisdiction of the courts on certain subjects. This concept was explored by the right back just after Roe v. Wade was handed out and never passed because this method had some problems.

The attempt to limit judicial activism on the link is not even close to Constitutional. The conservatives are not even trying to come up anything that is constitutional.

:shrug: