Government question for history..Need help ASAP

[CobraKid04]

OK, I need some help on this question I have for History. I have been looking in the constitution like a mad man and now it's time for SVT help!

Question...

Part (1) Briefly define what "Judicial Review" is and is not. We can understand that the Supreme Court has reserved that right, and has done so over the centuries by striking down, as unconstitutional, legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The Congress and the President generally can sometimes deal with these Court decisions by

(a) Rewriting and re-submitting a new law that would pass the Court's judicial review,

or, on a rare occasion,

(b) Waiting for Court membership to change, in the event that a new justice or group of new justices might be review the earlier legislation and find it Constitutional.


However, be advised, that there are actually two ways found in the Constitution on how to defeat the power of "Judicial Review." That is, though, the term is not itself found in the Constitution, the founding fathers seemed to have conceived of the notion that the Supreme Court might itself expand its powers in subsequent years. Thus, Congress and the President have a way to constitutionally defeat "Judicial Review." In fact, just in the last 8 years (2001 and 2008), it has occurred twice.



What the hell Are the two ways to defeat Judical Review?

 

[BLK03SVT10TH]

What the hell Are the two ways to defeat Judical Review?

I'm no law expert, but I think the answer is right there in your question.

(a) Rewriting and re-submitting a new law that would pass the Court's judicial review.

(b) Waiting for Court membership to change, in the event that a new justice or group of new justices might be review the earlier legislation and find it Constitutional.

 

[CobraKid04]

He is that type of teacher, but that would be to easy (I think).... Thanks for the quick reply!

any other ideas??!

 

[CobraKid04]

I'm no law expert, but I think the answer is right there in your question.

(a) Rewriting and re-submitting a new law that would pass the Court's judicial review.

(b) Waiting for Court membership to change, in the event that a new justice or group of new justices might be review the earlier legislation and find it Constitutional.

I don't think it could be A because, you still would have to pass judical review (we want to defeat it). As for B where does it say that in the constitution?

 

[LaFlavor]

Would passing an amendment changing the constitution be one way?

 

[61mmstang94]

Nevermind, I'll try to look some more shit up and get back to you as my thoughts are scattered right now!

 

[torquejunky59]

As for B where does it say that in the constitution?

That is, though, the term is not itself found in the Constitution, the founding fathers seemed to have conceived of the notion that the Supreme Court might itself expand its powers in subsequent years.

Just tryin' to help...

 

[CobraKid04]

Would passing an amendment changing the constitution be one way?

Thats what I was thinking but there hasn't been an amendment change since 1992.

One way could be if the issue at hand is a 'political issue' not under the power of the courts to decide? As for another, I'm not sure.


Your teacher noted 2001 and 2008 as important dates because there is obviously a case for each that shows an example of how it could be done. Think about any relevant cases he gave you in class...


On second thought, I think one of the ways would be a const. amendment, but I'm not sure if the first part of my post is relevant to the question.

In 2001 bush pased the patiot act(which the supreme court wasn't happy about).

2008 bush altered the disabilities act(the supreme court wasn't happy about that either.


He has not mentioned any dates he just gave it to us and we need to turn a paper in on this tom.

So would an act be a possible answer?

 

[CobraKid04]

Just tryin' to help...

I thinkin out loud so everyone has updated info. Sorry if I came off rude. I actually wanted to know if it said that in the constitution.hahah

Thanks!

 

[61mmstang94]

Thats what I was thinking but there hasn't been an amendment change since 1992.



In 2001 bush pased the patiot act(which the supreme court wasn't happy about).

2008 bush altered the disabilities act(the supreme court wasn't happy about that either.


He has not mentioned any dates he just gave it to us and we need to turn a paper in on this tom.

So would an act be a possible answer?

No, because the Sup. Ct. is allowed to review an Act and rule on nits constitutionality. Otherwise anything he wanted done he could circumvent the court system by creating a bunch of Acts as a means to further his agenda.

I would look at Sup. Ct. cases that were actually brought to the Court and decided that the Court had no jurisdiction over the matter.

 

[61mmstang94]

"When the Court rules on matters involving the interpretation of laws rather than of the Constitution, simple legislative action can reverse the decisions" (for example, in 2009 Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter act, superseding the limitations given in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in 2007.

Maybe something to think about?




"Congress can also pass legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain topics and cases: this is suggested by language in Section 2 of Article Three, where the appellate jurisdiction is granted "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Court sanctioned such congressional action in the Reconstruction case ex parte McCardle."

 

[CobraKid04]

^good info

 

[61mmstang94]

^good info

Look up the Ledbetter case and the Reconstruction case ex parte McCardle cases and see if they can apply to your question.

As for the two recent cases in '01 and '08....I'm not sure but it doesn't sound like your teacher necessarily wants you to know that and he was just trying to throw it out there to get you thinking. Read those two cases and see what the issues and reasoning are and I think you might ifnd your answer to the 2 ways around judicial review.

 

[txyaloo]

OK, I need some help on this question I have for History. I have been looking in the constitution like a mad man and now it's time for SVT help!

Question...

Part (1) Briefly define what "Judicial Review" is and is not. We can understand that the Supreme Court has reserved that right, and has done so over the centuries by striking down, as unconstitutional, legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The Congress and the President generally can sometimes deal with these Court decisions by

(a) Rewriting and re-submitting a new law that would pass the Court's judicial review,

or, on a rare occasion,

(b) Waiting for Court membership to change, in the event that a new justice or group of new justices might be review the earlier legislation and find it Constitutional.


However, be advised, that there are actually two ways found in the Constitution on how to defeat the power of "Judicial Review." That is, though, the term is not itself found in the Constitution, the founding fathers seemed to have conceived of the notion that the Supreme Court might itself expand its powers in subsequent years. Thus, Congress and the President have a way to constitutionally defeat "Judicial Review." In fact, just in the last 8 years (2001 and 2008), it has occurred twice.



What the hell Are the two ways to defeat Judical Review?

When did SVTP become doyourhomeworkforyou.com?

As mentioned, the two ways to defeat judicial review are rewriting the law and limiting the jurisdiction of the court.

I suspect the 2008 case your professor is referring to is Boumediene v. Bush or another case dealing with Congress trying to limit the jurisdiction of SCOTUS to rule on habeas corpus cases.

The 2001 case would be Public Law 107-11 passed by the 107th Congress which specifically forbade judicial review.

http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/delivery...ys/pkg/PLAW-107publ11/html/PLAW-107publ11.htm

SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

The decision to locate the memorial at the Rainbow Pool site in the
District of Columbia and the actions by the Commission of Fine Arts on
July 20, 2000 and November 16, 2000, the actions by the National Capital
Planning Commission on September 21, 2000 and December 14, 2000, and the
issuance of the special use permit identified in section 1 shall not be
subject to judicial review.

 

[61mmstang94]

When did SVTP become doyourhomeworkforyou.com?

As mentioned, the two ways to defeat judicial review are rewriting the law and limiting the jurisdiction of the court.

I suspect the 2008 case your professor is referring to is Boumediene v. Bush or another case dealing with Congress trying to limit the jurisdiction of SCOTUS to rule on habeas corpus cases.

The 2001 case would be Public Law 107-11 passed by the 107th Congress which specifically forbade judicial review.

http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/delivery...ys/pkg/PLAW-107publ11/html/PLAW-107publ11.htm

If there was a law that didn't pass judicial review, then rewriting it wouldn't bypass the judicial review process, because even after it's rewritten it would still be subject to following any orders the Court gives. So rewritting a law is not a bypass of judicial review. But the part about Congress limiting the scope of the Court is correct.

 

[CobraKid04]

When did SVTP become doyourhomeworkforyou.com?

As mentioned, the two ways to defeat judicial review are rewriting the law and limiting the jurisdiction of the court.

I suspect the 2008 case your professor is referring to is Boumediene v. Bush or another case dealing with Congress trying to limit the jurisdiction of SCOTUS to rule on habeas corpus cases.

The 2001 case would be Public Law 107-11 passed by the 107th Congress which specifically forbade judicial review.

http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/delivery...ys/pkg/PLAW-107publ11/html/PLAW-107publ11.htm

Could you rewrite the law as a bill? A bill dosen't need to go through the supreme court right? So if the sente proposed a Bill that limited the courts jurisdiction wouldn't that work?

SO the two ways are

1. rewriting the law
2. limiting the jurisdiction of the court

 

[CobraKid04]

A bill Is one correct answer.

Now I Just need a second. anyone?

 

[txyaloo]

Could you rewrite the law as a bill? A bill dosen't need to go through the supreme court right? So if the sente proposed a Bill that limited the courts jurisdiction wouldn't that work?

SO the two ways are

1. rewriting the law
2. limiting the jurisdiction of the court

A bill Is one correct answer.

Now I Just need a second. anyone?

A bill is just a proposed law. A bill doesn't become a law until it's approved by the House and Senate and then signed by the President. So yes, the law would need to be rewritten and introduced to comply with the Supreme Court ruling which defeats judicial review.

The second is limiting the jurisdiction of the court.

 

[FordSVTFan]

This thread is chock full of ROFL.

 

[PSUCOBRA96]

not sure exactly what you want but congress has the power within limits to cut back the types of cases the supreme court may hear, but it cannot expand the case load beyond the categories already outlined in the constitution. In essence it gives congress to the power to decide what cases to a point that the supreme court may hear.

Also congress can cutback as well as possibly eliminate if it really wanted to the lower federal courts although earlier cases U.S. v. Klein has shown that any jurisdictional limitation must be neutral and congress cannot decide the merits of a case basically by limiting jurisdiction and using it as a shield.

Look into article III, 2 of the constitution. This is a small sample of info that could be a good start for you