Attention: We are retiring the ASP.NET Community Blogs. Learn more >

HR3920 - Congressman wants to overturn Supreme Court

Oh, this is good.  Representative Ron Lewis (R-KY) has introduced a bill in Congress last week that aims to overthrow Supreme Court decisions concerning the constitutionality of acts of Congress.

As Slate Magazine put it, this is a “dumb proposal.”  I disagree entirely with HR 3920, but it doesn’t have any hope of becoming law – because it’s unconstitutional.  At least when Robert Bork, of Saturday Night Massacre fame, suggested something similar, he knew it would have to be an amendment to the Constitution.

1 Comment

  • I am not a lawyer, but I did take a moment to read Article 1, Section 1, and I can find no support for your contention that "[t]he judicial branch falls under the authority of the legislative branch". The article says: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The article here gives Congress the right to "ordain and establish" some "inferior courts", without defining these specifically. The Supreme Court itself, on the other hand, has been ordained and established by the Constitution. Only an ammendment to the Constitution can change this.



    So, I don't see in what sense the Supreme Court "falls under the authority" of Congress. Justices are, as you point out, nominated by the Executive and confirmed by the Legislative. After that exercise in balance-of-power, they're on their own. In fact, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power only to "constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court". In my opinion, any hearing by Congress to review the decisions of the Supreme Court would constitute a tribunal SUPERIOR to the Court and would thus exceed the authority granted to Congress by the Constitution. So, as Chuck said, this bill is likely unconstitutional and could only be enacted after an ammentment of the Constitution -- one which would push our entire system of government into a death spiral.



    Many writers have expressed their opinions in many ways, but few of those opinions wielded the power necessary to modify the Constitution. The opinions of Lincoln or Madison carry no more weight than yours or mine, except to the extent that they are embodied in law.



    And, finally, I do not agree that the courts are inventing law by pointing out that laws must be applied absolutely equally. US legal history is one tending toward inclusiveness. Many times the courts have found it necessary to point out that our arbitrary definitions, if not codified in a law, are meaningless before the law. The debate today about the meaning of "marriage" is just an echo of our past debates about the meaning of "man".

Comments have been disabled for this content.