Constitutional Amendments - Apparently Not Impossible

[David Floyd]

OK, the title is a bit disingenuous, however, if the following article is accurate one might just be possible to regulate Campaign Finance Reform...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Summary: Americans across the political spectrum believe SCOTUS "got it wrong" WRT the recent CFR decision - a recent poll shows around 80% disagree with the Court.

Of course, the reality is the Court ruled as it should have, Constitutionally, however, if the American public feels as they do, then it is certainly possible to amend the Constitution to allow CFR, such as McCain-Feingold-esque laws. However, the disturbing part of the article only mentions support for Congress passing legislation to "get around" the SCOTUS decision.

WTF? That's not how it works. Pass an Amendment or STFU. You apparently have the support to pass one, so, John McCain, why don't you get one introduced?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wait. What's wrong with crafting legislation specifically enough that it doesn't violate a court's judgement, but does something akin, but not nearly as sweeping, to what was struck down?

[David Floyd]

I suppose nothing in theory, but if it comes up again before the same Court, there's a better than even money risk it would be struck down.

What's wrong with just passing an amendment, if popular support is so high? That fulfills the spirit of the Constitution, creates public discussion about the RIGHT WAY to enact policy outside what is allowed in the Constitution (which I suspect is the problem politicians have with an Amendment in this case), and eliminates SCOTUS as a concern in this matter.

[Felch]

Wait. What's wrong with crafting legislation specifically enough that it doesn't violate a court's judgement, but does something akin, but not nearly as sweeping, to what was struck down?

Imagine two brothers, and the older one has a nasty habit of punching the younger one. Mom and Dad say, "Stop punching your little brother." So instead he kicks his little brother in the nuts.

That's basically your proposal. The Constitution prohibits Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." SCOTUS ruled that it applies to campaign contributions from corporations. Either amend the Constitution to eliminate freedom of speech, or walk away with your tail between your legs.

[DaShi]

Or eliminate the Supreme Court.

[David Floyd]

While your example is not strictly speaking the same thing that Imran is suggesting, it's a point well made, especially when you consider both the spirit of the Constitution and the spirit of the ruling. Yes, I have no doubt Congress could come up with something that would probably "get around" the SCOTUS ruling, that isn't really the right way to do things, and damaging to our Constitutional process IMHO.

[David Floyd]

Or eliminate the Supreme Court.

You still need an Amendment, and even if you do it, what entity has original jurisdiction for disputes between states, for example, and who is the ultimate appellate authority for Constitutional questions and/or federal law?

[DaShi]

Me.

[David Floyd]

Nah, I was thinking AAHZ, or possibly Ben.

[DaShi]

They'd just mess up the country out of stupidity. I'd do it out of spite.

[flash9286]

Or eliminate the Supreme Court.

This is the correct response.

what entity has original jurisdiction for disputes between states, for example, and who is the ultimate appellate authority for Constitutional questions and/or federal law?

Congress can make that the Supreme Court doesn't have original or appellate jurisdiction over constitutional issues or federal law questions.

[David Floyd]

Not really, at least not according to Article 3 Section 2, and for that matter, Marbury v Madison sort of settled the issue 200 years ago.

Besides, you really want Congress in charge of ruling on the legality of the laws they pass?

[flash9286]

Yes really, Congress has control over the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. And constitutional questions are not in the court's original jurisdiction except if they are raised somehow raised in one of the categories the court has original jurisdiction over.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Marbury, held that the Supreme's court original adjudication could not be expanded or contracted.

esides, you really want Congress in charge of ruling on the legality of the laws they pass?

Better than an unelected, unrepresentative group of lawyers.

[David Floyd]

Upon review, you appear to be right. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, though. My impression was that Marbury changed the interpretation such that SCOTUS had the ability to review any law or act passed by Congress if such a law was challenged on Constitutional grounds. That would seem to include a law limiting SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction, no? I don't know.

Either way, you can't abolish SCOTUS without an Amendment.

Additionally, I'd rather have unelected lawyers who aren't beholden to voters (ie, easily manipulated idiots) than elected lawyers who are beholden to special interest groups and voters who don't have a ****ing clue what's going on.

Finally, this argument is sorta off on a tangent, in that the original point stands - the best way to get around a SCOTUS decision is to pass an Amendment, especially given the level of support one would seem to have in this case.

[flash9286]

Additionally, I'd rather have unelected lawyers who aren't beholden to voters (ie, easily manipulated idiots) than elected lawyers who are beholden to special interest groups and voters who don't have a ****ing clue what's going on.

So, you would just rather not have a democracy.

Finally, this argument is sorta off on a tangent, in that the original point stands - the best way to get around a SCOTUS decision is to pass an Amendment, especially given the level of support one would seem to have in this case.

Or just wait for the political composition of the court to change, probably would be faster.