My, but Congress does get up to the most interesting things when you're not looking.
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.
But wouldn't an act that gives Congress the authority to review the constitutionality of a reversal of its unconstitutional acts be ... you know, unconstitutional? Wouldn't that require a full constitutional amendment? Technically speaking, the Court can overrule the act itself by ruling it unconstitutional. For that matter, given the way the act is currently phrased, they can just get into a long loop of the court determining that the act is unconstitutional, Congress passing it again, the Court saying, "Tough, it's still unconstitutional," and so on and so on ...
It's a lovely piece of political grandstanding by Congress, likely to play well in the home districts. Basically, Congress now says that they want to be the final judges of whether or not their acts are constitutional. It would destroy the long and intricate balance of powers dance that we've done for a couple hundred years now. In any event, for the most part, the sorts of things that Congress gets pissed off about aren't always acts of Congress that are reversed -- for example, Lawrence vs Texas had nothing to do with them. On the other hand, that would mean that if the Court strikes down the Child Online Protection Act (as they should) after the passage of this law, Congress could then turn around and simply override them. Which would be very bad indeed.
Posted by iain at March 11, 2004 04:30 PM
