Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bill To Allow Congress To Reverse Decisions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bill To Allow Congress To Reverse Decisions

    H.R.3920
    Title: To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.
    Sponsor: Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] (introduced 3/9/2004) Cosponsors: 11
    Latest Major Action: 3/9/2004 Referred to House committee. Status: 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.


    source


    Mr. G

  • #2
    doesn't this defeat the checks and balances system?

    What happens if the Supreme Court declares this law unconstitutional?
    Official Lounge Sponsor of:
    MIGOTS!, TJ Oshie, David Freese, Sponsoring Softball Players, Trout, Bon Jovi, Cold, hard facts, rigidly defined with mathematical precision, The abortion boat, which traveled to Poland in 2003 and Ireland in 2001.

    Former Lounge Sponsor of:
    The Hebrew Hammer, BBZ, Foods that start with the letter 'Q', Paul 'Visor' Mitchell, FBBHOFer Brett "William" Wallace, BBFHOF, THE LALPHABET: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N I Z M N O P Q R S T U V Z T U V X Y X Z, The Return of MarkD.

    Comment


    • #3
      Actually, it helps restore some semblance of balance.

      We're ruled by judges at the moment.
      And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

      -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 16 2004, 11:54 AM
        Actually, it helps restore some semblance of balance.

        We're ruled by judges at the moment.
        how can you say that? The judges can only interpret what the lawmakers write. If they have a problem, it's their own damn fault for being ambiguous.
        Official Lounge Sponsor of:
        MIGOTS!, TJ Oshie, David Freese, Sponsoring Softball Players, Trout, Bon Jovi, Cold, hard facts, rigidly defined with mathematical precision, The abortion boat, which traveled to Poland in 2003 and Ireland in 2001.

        Former Lounge Sponsor of:
        The Hebrew Hammer, BBZ, Foods that start with the letter 'Q', Paul 'Visor' Mitchell, FBBHOFer Brett "William" Wallace, BBFHOF, THE LALPHABET: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N I Z M N O P Q R S T U V Z T U V X Y X Z, The Return of MarkD.

        Comment


        • #5
          Amazing how under Bush, we're starting to see a major shift from the constitution that shaped our nation.
          Make America Great For Once.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BringBackZezel@Mar 16 2004, 11:52 AM
            doesn't this defeat the checks and balances system?

            What happens if the Supreme Court declares this law unconstitutional?
            They will. The S.C. ruled long ago that it is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says and means. Although I don't think that power is specifically listed in the Constitution.
            "You can't handle my opinions." Moedrabowsky

            Jeffro is a hell of a good man.

            "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Kev@Mar 16 2004, 11:56 AM
              Amazing how under Bush, we're starting to see a major shift from the constitution that shaped our nation.
              i'm not amazed at all....he's pushing a fundamentalist agenda that is wrong for our country.
              Are you on the list?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SLUBLUE+Mar 16 2004, 11:57 AM-->
                QUOTE (SLUBLUE @ Mar 16 2004, 11:57 AM)

              • #9
                Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 16 2004, 11:54 AM
                Actually, it helps restore some semblance of balance.

                We're ruled by judges at the moment.
                Technically speaking, the legislature already has the power to overrule the S.C. If they don't like the way the Court has interpreted a specific law, the Congress is always free to re-write the legislation.
                "You can't handle my opinions." Moedrabowsky

                Jeffro is a hell of a good man.

                "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 16 2004, 11:54 AM
                  Actually, it helps restore some semblance of balance.

                  We're ruled by judges at the moment.
                  What a telling comment.
                  The Dude abides.

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Originally posted by BurnKU+Mar 16 2004, 12:00 PM-->
                    QUOTE (BurnKU @ Mar 16 2004, 12:00 PM)
                    Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:57 AM

                  • #12
                    Article. III.
                    Section. 1.
                    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 Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

                    Section. 2.
                    Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


                    source


                    Mr. G

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      Originally posted by FAR52+Mar 16 2004, 11:56 AM-->
                      QUOTE (FAR52 @ Mar 16 2004, 11:56 AM)

                    • #14
                      Originally posted by SLUBLUE+Mar 16 2004, 12:02 PM-->
                      QUOTE (SLUBLUE @ Mar 16 2004, 12:02 PM)
                      Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:00 PM
                      Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:57 AM

                    • #15
                      Originally posted by BurnKU+Mar 16 2004, 12:05 PM-->
                      QUOTE (BurnKU @ Mar 16 2004, 12:05 PM)
                      Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:02 PM
                      Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:00 PM
                      Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:57 AM
                      Working...
                      X