If you live in Kentucky, kill yourself now!!

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 ³Congressional Accountability for Judicial
Activism Act of 2004².

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.

"steve sullivan" wrote

A BILL

To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme
Court.


it is no exaggeration to say that the enactment of such legislation
would be the end of our system of government, as we have known it for the
last two hundred years. the supreme court would rule that the legislation
was unconstitutional, and if no one blinks, we have u.s. marshalls putting
the supreme court under arrest, for some damn something. contempt of
congress?

is there no end to the madness of the far right?

wayno

"Wayne Harrison" wrote in message
.com...

it is no exaggeration to say that the enactment of such legislation
would be the end of our system of government, as we have known it for the
last two hundred years. the supreme court would rule that the legislation
was unconstitutional, and if no one blinks, we have u.s. marshalls putting
the supreme court under arrest, for some damn something. contempt of
congress?


You are more than likely more versed in constitutional law than some bean
counter in the eastern mid-west but didn't Andrew Jackson openly disregard a
Supreme Court opinion? The point being I guess that something like this has
already happened once and we survived it. Like the bibical story that the
poor will always be with us, the crackpots on both ends of the political
spectrum will continue to offer up things which push the envelope,
eventually the envelope pushes back.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:14:59 -0500, "Wayne Knight"
in misc.legal, wrote the following:

You are more than likely more versed in constitutional law than some bean
counter in the eastern mid-west but didn't Andrew Jackson openly disregard a
Supreme Court opinion?

"Jackson was responsible for the notorious Indian Removal Act of 1830,
and thus the Trail of Tears, in unconstitutional defiance of a Supreme
Court ruling."

Not exactly sterling example of exemplary presidential authority in
response to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (30 U.S. 1). See

http://tinyurl.com/yrrs7
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831)

and

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html
People & Events: Indian removal, 1814 - 1858


--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

In article , Katherine
Griffis-Greenberg wrote:



"Jackson was responsible for the notorious Indian Removal Act of 1830,
and thus the Trail of Tears, in unconstitutional defiance of a Supreme
Court ruling."

Slightly startled to find you here, Katherine, after our recent
discussion about Nebmaatre. Do you fish?

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
om...

Slightly startled to find you here, Katherine, after our recent
discussion about Nebmaatre. Do you fish?

It's cross posted through three newsgroups, something I missed when I posted
my comment to Mr. Harrison or else I would have removed the crime and legal
newsgroups from the first posting.

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
news
"Wayne Harrison" wrote in message
.com...

it is no exaggeration to say that the enactment of such legislation
would be the end of our system of government, as we have known it for
the
last two hundred years. the supreme court would rule that the
legislation
was unconstitutional, and if no one blinks, we have u.s. marshalls
putting
the supreme court under arrest, for some damn something. contempt of
congress?


You are more than likely more versed in constitutional law than some bean
counter in the eastern mid-west but didn't Andrew Jackson openly disregard
a
Supreme Court opinion? The point being I guess that something like this
has
already happened once and we survived it.

I agree with you Wayne. As a more recent example of the reverse happening,
the Supreme Court decided a deadlocked presidential election when the
Constitution calls for the dispute to be resolved by House of
Representatives (Art. II, Section 1).

Memphis Jim

In article ,
steve sullivan wrote:

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 ³Congressional Accountability for Judicial
Activism Act of 2004².

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.

Article III, section 2 gives Congress the power to decide whether the
Supreme Court will have original or appellate jurisdiction in particular
kinds of cases. It does not give Congress the power to take a case out
of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court altogether.

I thought the reports of this crackpot bill had to be a hoax designed to
defame the Republican Party in an election year, but I looked it up on
Thomas (thomas.loc.gov), and it is real: HR3920.

Not so quick. Congress can remove jurisdiction after having previously
granted it. See Ex Parte McCardle, a famous con law case decided just after
the War of North Aggression.

http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_ex_pa...ardle_1868.htm
http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_ex_pa...ardle_1867.htm
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/116/

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. I did, however, have a damn good
Con Law professor back in college.

-John
"tjab" wrote in message

snip.

Article III, section 2 gives Congress the power to decide whether the
Supreme Court will have original or appellate jurisdiction in particular
kinds of cases. It does not give Congress the power to take a case out
of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court altogether.

I thought the reports of this crackpot bill had to be a hoax designed to
defame the Republican Party in an election year, but I looked it up on
Thomas (thomas.loc.gov), and it is real: HR3920.

OK, tell me if I understand you right. The Congress cannot interfere in
cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. But in other
cases (if this bill were passed) Congress could require that the lower
courts' decisions on Constitutional matters would stand, and thus the
binding interpretation of the Constitution would depend on what part
of the country you were in?


In article k.net,
JohnR wrote:
Not so quick. Congress can remove jurisdiction after having previously
granted it. See Ex Parte McCardle, a famous con law case decided just after
the War of North Aggression.

http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_ex_pa...ardle_1868.htm
http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_ex_pa...ardle_1867.htm
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/116/

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. I did, however, have a damn good
Con Law professor back in college.

-John
"tjab" wrote in message

snip.

Article III, section 2 gives Congress the power to decide whether the
Supreme Court will have original or appellate jurisdiction in particular
kinds of cases. It does not give Congress the power to take a case out
of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court altogether.

I thought the reports of this crackpot bill had to be a hoax designed to
defame the Republican Party in an election year, but I looked it up on
Thomas (thomas.loc.gov), and it is real: HR3920.