A super majority

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Rammstein, Mar 7, 2007.

  1. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Would you support an amendment to the US constitution to allow congress to override a Supreme Court decision with a super majority?

    Why or why not?
     
  2. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Personally, I think that while it may initially be a good idea, but it could be used for ill intent.

    Would Brown v BoE have been overturned? Roe v Wade?

    I personally believe that had there been a super majority clause that both would have been overturned.
     

  3. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    If congress can override the SCOTUS, even with a super majority, or even with 100%,, it negates the separation of the three parts of our government.

    So, I don't agree.

    I personally don't agree with all the decisions of the court, but I think we need a totally independant group to decide what the framers of the constitution intended.
     
  4. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    To play a little bit of devil's advocate...

    But isn't this just another check on a different branch's power?
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    No, wait! =;

    Isn't that exactly what judicial supremacy does? :-s
     
  6. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    Could/would someone refer me to the section in the constitution that specifies SCOTUS supremacy please?
     
  7. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,336
    119
    63
    Amend the Constitution

    If it's imporant enough, and the bad Supreme Court decision is bad enough for our society and universally recognized as judicial activism, we could always AMEND the constitution to specifically reject what the Court said.

    People say that our Constitution is too difficult to amend. Well, maybe that's true when we, as a people, can't really agree on what it means or what it's supposed to mean, and many of us are too lazy or apathetic to bother helping support an amendment. But if we (the People) saw a threat to our liberty in a SCOTUS ruling, and it really offended us, we could make our state and federal legislators fix it pretty darn quick.
     
  8. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    You won't find it. The Sup.Crt. basically said they could.
     
  9. rajl

    rajl New Member

    391
    0
    0
    Judicial Review.

    It's the principle stemming from Marbury v Madison allowing for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional.
     
  10. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Bingo.
     
  11. rajl

    rajl New Member

    391
    0
    0
    As a constitutional sidenote though, just because the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, does not mean that it is the final arbiter in constitutional interpretation. However, most people in our political culture have abrogated the power of constitutional interpretation to the Court.

    Both the executive and legislative branches of our government have equal powers to interpret the constitution. However, their ways may not be so obvious. Many laws that the Supreme Court has thrown out have merely been reintroduce in a slightly rewritten form and then passed again by Congress, effectively over-riding the Supreme Court's powers of Judicial Review. In addition, the President and the executive branch are not required by the constitution to actually enforce court decisions. On the contrary, Article I gives the President power to grant reprieves and pardons, which allows the president to negate court decisions. For example, the Supreme Court may uphold the death penalty as constitutional, but if the president believed that the death penalty violated our Eighth Amendment protections, it is within his constitutional power to commute every death row inmate's sentence to life imprisonment.

    All of this explains what Andrew Jackson put quite simply when he said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." :-({|=
     
  12. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    Thanks all... that's what i recall too.