The Pouting Pinhead Protection Act of 2004

Say, this will come in handy if this country ever becomes a theocracy....

"H.R. 3920
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."

You may wonder what "judicial activism" these dimwits are concerned about...well, all of the sponsors are far right wing loonies opposed to the standing Surpreme Court decisions on the Church/State wall, reproductive cchoice, the right to privacy, environemntal laws, and guns...

Supreme Court decisions, bush* and company should be getting awfully nervous!

Jeebus would never let that happen...

http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html

Nothing to see here folks; move along.

Sounds like a few folks in Congress are in need of frontal lobotomies. Then they'd only have to worry about which side of their mouths to drool out of......

:-)

"activist judicial rulings"? Seems to me all three branches of govt have been kind of confused about their powers.

Do we have a strict constructionist here?

Perhaps you could explain your view of "activist judicial rulings".

Of course, I should maybe anticipate that you are referring, for instance, to the particular ruling that brought Bush to the presidency. I know that I'd hesitate to call that an instance of "judicial activism", since it appears that the court was just doing its job; I'd call it, instead, an instance of plain old corruption. It ain't the fact that it did its job that's the problem, it's the fact that the people who do the court's job did it so very badly.

.

...schools might still be segregated.

I have no problem with activist judges. However, I DO have a problem with assholes in any government position, and there seem to be so many of them on the Republican side.

who are not answerable to anyone, passing laws?

somebody has a problem with his constitution.

That's a law that judges didn't pass, but are required to apply, right?

.

And here in Colorado, all judges are subject to retention votes every few years. If the people vote not to retain a judge, he or she is gone.

So YOU have no problem with asshole Republicans trying to screw up the Constitution?

But I think this is more about appointed federal judges.

IMHO.

all three branches.

Even here on DU.

And any pro-gunner who still belongs to the NRA is guilty of that. Their dues money feeds the GOP's coffers.

You never see anybody in the RKBA crowd bad-mouthing a Republican...or struggling through five or six attempts to post a picture defaming a member of the GOP.

I bad mouth Republicans all the time.

Just about every day, and I can't recall ever bad-mouthing a Democrat on these forums.

Are you saying that I don't bad mouth Republicans?

Here, I'll bad mouth them a bit here:


I think Republican politicians, in general, are a bunch of gun grabbing, authoritarian assholes. For that matter, I think Republican voters are a bunch of ignorant halfwits. Especially the ones who vote for Republicans because they think Republican politicians are pro-gun. I think the Republican voters who try to blow off all the gun control the Republicans have passed in the last 25 years are the worst of the lot, since they know about the gun grabbing shit Republican politicians are up to and try to make excuses for them.

Ain't that the cat's meow?<sarcasm off>

Canada's 1982 Constitution contains this provision:

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html (emphasis added)

EXCEPTION WHERE EXPRESS DECLARATION / Operation of exception / Five year limitation / Re-enactment / Five year limitation.

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

It amounts to basically what the US proposal is -- except that a judgment of the Supreme Court would not be required before Parliament or a legislature overrode a provision of the Charter of Rights. Parliament or a legislature may pre-empt a constitutional challenge by enacting legislation notwithstanding what certain sections of the constitution says.

The sections in question address these matters:

-- fundamental freedoms (e.g. speech, association)

-- legal rights:
- life, liberty, security of the person
- right against unreasonable search and seizure
- right against arbitrary detention or imprisonment
- rights upon arrest
- rights in the criminal justice system (trial, bail, etc.)
- right against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment
- right against self-incrimination
- right to an interpreter

-- equality rights

Parliament or a legislature may not override, for instance, "democratic rights" (voting and elections), "mobility rights", and the other rights and freedoms set out in the Charter.

The provision was a compromise between the proposal to entrench a "bill of rights" in the constitution and the tradition of "parliamentary supremacy" which holds that the will of the people, through their elected representatives, is supreme and must not be fettered.

The latter school of thought does not adequately address the notion, fundamental to a liberal democracy, that minorities must be protected from majority rule.

The former school of thought is regarded as potentially hamstringing a government faced with serious public policy reasons for limiting the exercise of some rights (e.g. during wartime).

The famous instance in which the notwithstanding clause was invoked was Quebec's requirement that French be the primary language of commercial speech (signs), based on the provincial legislature's grave concern for the survival of francophone/québécois society and culture in North America -- i.e., in the conflict between the collective right of cultural survival and development, and the individual right of free expression (not to mention the conflict between anglophones' and francophones' collective rights), it came down on the side of the collective right. That legislation was allowed to sunset by a subsequent government.

As in the whole ball of wax that is constitutional democracy, the good will and good faith of the people and their elected representatives is the only real guarantor of freedom and democracy one ever has, whatever the written arrangements are. No piece of paper is going to stop a government that has widespread support, and the various powers of government, from doing what it wants to do.

The commentary in the battered Charter of Rights and Freedoms booklet by my elbow, published by the government in 1982, says (emphasis added):

... In other words, if a government should propose a law that may limit some of the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter, it will have to say clearly that this is what it is doing and accept full responsibility for the political consequences.

One can't say whether it was a direct "political consequence" of invoking the notwithstanding clause, but the Quebec government that did so was voted out of office in the next election.

The right-wingers up here mumble about invoking the clause, if they're elected, all the time -- to restore the death penalty, to outlaw abortion, to prohibit same-sex marriage. So far, nobody's electing them. And I generally say that if we did elect them, we'd already have a lot more problems (a population that chose to elect a fascistic government) than the notwithstanding clause.

Anyhow, obviously the problem in the US is that the fascistic government in question is a little closer on the horizon, and the likelihood of such a clause being used is just a bit more foreseeable. But again, surely the real problem is whom one elects -- like the sponsors of the proposal in question in this thread -- not what one allows them to do once they're elected.

.

including the gloriously named Pombo....are basically your American Taliban...born again, pig-ignorant and opposed to pretty much everything in civilization.

And needless to say, they're pro-gun all the way.

The SCOTUS will only rule it unconstitutional. :think: :crazy:

The SCOTUS will only rule it unconstitutional.

And that does just make it a pretty silly proposal.

(Our counterpart up here would be how the right-wing party talks about governing essentially by referendum -- e.g. legislating to restore the death penalty, outlaw abortion, etc., all of which would be unconstitutional, in response to a petition from "x"% of the electorate ... leaving unanswered the question of how to get around the constitution, which requires a "notwithstanding" law.)

What they need to be going after is a constitutional amendment to the effect of this bill, obviously.

That would give them the equivalent of what's in the Canadian constitution, but perhaps without (at this particular juncture) the same political constraints as Canadian legislators are under when it comes to violating constitutional rights. We won't actually elect a government that proposes the kinds of violations that these guys in the US would be proposing -- violations of other people's constitutional rights that they just don't happen to like.

To give USAmerican electors and legislators their due, I'm not seeing any names I actually recognize on the list of that bill's sponsors. ;)

.

Pombo speak with forked tongue...many dittoheads swallow!

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/

"Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (Introduced in Senate)
S 2082 IS
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2082
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
`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.'."