GreekChat.com Forums - A Bill That Would Authorized The Congress To Reverse the Supreme Court

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)

- - A Bill That Would Authorized The Congress To Reverse the Supreme Court (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=53551)

A Bill That Would Authorized The Congress To Reverse the Supreme Court

Quote:

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.

It is H.R.3920 IH

The Sponsor is Rep. Ron Lewis of Kentucky

It is currently being referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

This is a really really bad idea. If, and I emphasis IF, it passed, the Supreme Court would struck it down. How ironic.

well this bill would be meaningless unless they passed an amendment to the constitution......

I can't believe some of the dumbasses we have in Congress that bring these bills in. They should automatically not be allowed to run for reelection :D

agreed...they should be out of the gene pool.
it's a frightening idea.

You know, when I first herd of this, I kept on thinking it was an elaborate joke made by The Onion.

The following legislatures should be forced to retake elementary (sp?) level government classes, especially the part about seperation of power:

Rep Lewis, Ron [KY]
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4]
Rep Ballenger, Cass [NC-10]
Rep Bilirakis, Michael [FL-9]
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31]
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6]
Rep Collins, Mac [GA-8]
Rep DeMint, Jim [SC-4]
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4]
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2]
Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2]
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24]
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2]
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5]
Rep Hefley, Joel [CO-5]
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2]
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3]
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3]
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1]
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16]
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6]
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16]
Rep Pombo, Richard W. [CA-11]
Rep Schrock, Edward L. [VA-2]
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32]
Rep Smith, Nick [MI-7]
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3]

That's really funny. Did it ever make it out of committee?

This will probably (hopefully) never actually be voted on. It's probably more little election year maneuvering than anything else.

I really have nothing to add except to agree that this flies directly in the face of the founders Separation of Powers doctrine.

Not that I want to start a war (nor do I have time to look the information up), but it would be interesting to know party affilliation and leaning (liberal/moderate/conservative) of these folks.

Oh good lord, Tom Feeney is the representative for my district. Sigh....

DA- Tom Feeney is a Republican.

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
That's really funny. Did it ever make it out of committee?

This will probably (hopefully) never actually be voted on. It's probably more little election year maneuvering than anything else.

It's still in the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. How strong is Ron Lewis? Seems like most of his sponsor bills has to do with liquors and farming.

H.R.3979 : To exempt the natural aging process in the determination of the production period for distilled spirits under section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

H.R.2950 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of tax on distilled spirits to its pre-1985 level.

Quote:

Originally posted by moe.ron
It's still in the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. How strong is Ron Lewis? Seems like most of his sponsor bills has to do with liquors and farming.

H.R.3979 : To exempt the natural aging process in the determination of the production period for distilled spirits under section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

H.R.2950 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of tax on distilled spirits to its pre-1985 level.

My guess is that it'll never see the light of day. And as for his other resolutions, it seems this guy is bought and paid for by the liquor lobby. I'd like to see what he keeps in his bar.

Quote:

Originally posted by kddani
well this bill would be meaningless unless they passed an amendment to the constitution......

Yup. Just election year posturing.

Quote:

Originally posted by kddani
well this bill would be meaningless unless they passed an amendment to the constitution......

I can't believe some of the dumbasses we have in Congress that bring these bills in. They should automatically not be allowed to run for reelection :D

I was reading the constitution and found out that technically, the Congress can pass this legislation.

Quote:

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by moe.ron
I was reading the constitution and found out that technically, the Congress can pass this legislation.

Supreme Courts can do some funny things.

All they'd really have to do is interpret those lines as if they meant something else and they would avert the entire problem.

Found this interesting article that deals with Marbury vs. Madison. It's a long read, but it is also a great read:

Link to the Article