{"id":2001,"date":"2004-03-16T12:40:35","date_gmt":"2004-03-16T12:40:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.soulhuntre.com\/items\/date\/2004\/03\/16\/not-so-supreme-court\/"},"modified":"2004-03-16T12:40:35","modified_gmt":"2004-03-16T12:40:35","slug":"not-so-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/2004\/03\/16\/not-so-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Not so Supreme Court?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Does the phrase “To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court (H.R.3920)<\/strong>” bother you as much as it bothers me? Because it bothers the hell out of me. If it were to pass, this is the sort of thing that the founding fathers would have started a revolution about. Some discussion at Metafilter<\/a> ensues.<\/p>\n

I have been as annoyed as anyone in the past about how the bench sometimes re-writes whole segments of law at it’s whim, but this is not the answer. Of particular concern:<\/p>\n

\n

“`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.<\/b>‘.” – see bill text below for quote, emphasis mine<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I have included the bill as I could find it as well as some of the disturbing comments made when it was introduced.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, A GRAVE AND GROWING PROBLEM — (House of Representatives – March 04, 2004)<\/h1>\n

—<\/p>\n

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis<\/em>) is recognized for 5 minutes. <\/p>\n

   Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak about judicial activism, a grave and growing problem in our current national discourse that is threatening our democratic principles, eroding the consent of the governed, and radically altering the social fabric of our American society. <\/p>\n

   It should be of little surprise that the impetus of this debate, and the modest solutions I intend to set forth, stem from the November ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriages and the subsequent rulings on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act that have followed. <\/p>\n

   I am a strong supporter of numerous legislative measures currently being considered by this Congress, aiming to define marriage as an exclusive union between one man and one woman. However, I believe a more comprehensive solution is necessary to address the broader, troubling trend toward judicial activism, a development with definitive implications beyond just the issue of marriage. <\/p>\n

   America’s judicial branch has become increasingly overreaching and disconnected from the values of everyday Americans, many of whom I represent in the Second District of Kentucky. The recent actions taken by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere are demonstrative of a single branch of government taking upon itself the singular ability to legislate. I believe these actions usurp the will of the governed, circumvent representative government by allowing tribunals of a select few, not elected or otherwise politically responsible, to conclusively rule on issues that are radically reshaping the societal traditions of our great Nation. <\/p>\n

   Clearly, this issue is one about power, not in the raw political sense but in terms of the allocation of government authority between each branch of government, specifically between Congress and the Judiciary, in a federal system that relies on checks and balances to protect our liberty. This is a debate that has been taking place since our founding. <\/p>\n

   At no point is the tension between Congress and the courts greater than in the realm of constitutional interpretation. The Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review. Instead, the right of judicial review is a practice with origins from the bench itself, established in 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Branch to say what the law is.” <\/p>\n

   The Marbury v. Madison case decision provides an extraordinary recognition of judicial power in a constitutional form of government. The exercise of such broad authority, expanded over time through political tradition, clearly has a growing adverse effect on the relationship between coequal arms of our national government. As judicial power expands, congressional power contracts. This is especially true when the power to interpret the Constitution rests in the hands of activist judges anxious to find the latest “right” hiding between the lines of our founding document. <\/p>\n

   Our Founding Fathers created three separate branches of government, each with equal checks and balances on the other. Our founders also ensured that each branch, including Congress, play a role in constitutional interpretation, requiring officials in each branch to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. <\/p>\n

   The framers did not give authority to one branch over the other. Certainly each branch has its separate functions, but debating, defending, and upholding the tenets of the Constitution involve the decision and duties of each branch. As a Congress, we must change our thinking and reaffirm our authority to interpret constitutional issues in concert with, and independent from, the courts. <\/p>\n

   The framers of the Constitution were advocates of serious debate who believed that the deliberation of the political process should always be open to the people. If the courts continue their dramatic move toward self-proclaimed interpretive power, I believe Congress, as the people’s branch of representative government, should take steps to ensure equal balance and authority to check the final results. <\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

[Time: 13:30]<\/pre>\n
   I am introducing legislation today to address these serious, pressing issues in a direct and forceful manner. The bill that I have authored, if enacted, will allow Congress, by a two-thirds majority of each House, to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court. This additional check may only be enforced on rulings concerning the constitutionality of an act of Congress following the enactment of this bill. <\/p>\n
   In his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln warned, “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” <\/p>\n
   It is my hope that the people and the courts will see my position and recognize the serious problems arising from this growing imbalance of constitutional authority. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to redress judicial activism, protect the equal dignity of this governing body, and preserve the majority will of the governed by supporting this legislation. <\/p>\n
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004<\/h1>\n
\n
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004<\/b><\/p>\n
HR 3799 IH<\/b><\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n
108th CONGRESS<\/p>\n
2d Session<\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n
H. R. 3799
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.<\/b><\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES<\/b><\/p>\n
February 11, 2004<\/b><\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n

Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself and Mr. PENCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary<\/b><\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n
\n
 <\/p>\n
A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.<\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,<\/p>\n
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.<\/p>\n
This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2004′.<\/p>\n
TITLE I–JURISDICTION<\/p>\n
SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.<\/p>\n
(a) IN GENERAL-<\/p>\n
(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:<\/p>\n
`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable<\/p>\n
`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.’.<\/p>\n
(2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:<\/p>\n
`1260. Matters not reviewable.’.<\/p>\n
(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.<\/p>\n
SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.<\/p>\n
(a) IN GENERAL-<\/p>\n
(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:<\/p>\n
`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review<\/p>\n
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district court shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.’.<\/p>\n
(2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:<\/p>\n
`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.’.<\/p>\n
(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.<\/p>\n
TITLE II–INTERPRETATION<\/p>\n
SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.<\/p>\n
In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than the constitutional law and English common law.<\/p>\n
TITLE III–ENFORCEMENT<\/p>\n
SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.<\/p>\n
Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.<\/p>\n
SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.<\/p>\n
To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of–<\/p>\n
(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and<\/p>\n
(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.
END<\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Does the phrase “To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court (H.R.3920)” bother you as much as it bothers me? Because it bothers the hell out of me. If it were to pass, this is the sort of thing that the founding fathers would have started a revolution about. Some […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":53128,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"aside","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[278],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2001"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2001"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2001\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/53128"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2001"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2001"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2001"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}