- The amendment is almost certain to fail, as it would need to win two-thirds support to pass the Senate, and then would still need to move through the House and be ratified by two-thirds of the states.
party poopers.
I'm not sure I follow. Congress and the States do regulate campaign funding as it is. SCOTUS only interprets the legislation that they enact, and determines whether or not it is constitutional. That said, this part of the amendment sounds misguided: By definition, the SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the Constitution, and rejects laws that are found to be unconstitutional. An amendment regarding campaign finance would define how SCOTUS should interpret all related legislation. Saying that some legislation is off-hands from SCOTUS would be a breach of the separation of powers, and yes, legislation that resulted in more de-regulation would be sheltered by the amendment. In short, I agree that the law could have the same bad result, but not because of the power it gives Congress and the States, but the power it removes from the SCOTUS.It would also prohibit the Supreme Court from reversing any future campaign finance legislation passed by Congress.
It would prohibit the reversal of legislation, because that's the whole point of the proposed amendment. You can find the text here. It would prohibit the Court from reversing campaign finance laws in the same way the Court is prohibited from reversing any other law that is explicitly outlined in the Constitution. It might be a poorly worded phrase by The Hill, but what they meant was that Congress would have explicit authority to regulate campaign finance that the Court couldn't usurp on any other Constitutional grounds.
Thanks. It makes much more sense after reading the actual amendment. The Hill's description is odd. So basically, it gives Congress the explicit Constitutional power to regulate campaign finance. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think I would prefer some specific goals of campaign finance regulation written into and amendment itself, and have the SCOTUS uphold or knock down legislation based upon whether or not it supports those goals.
That's not really how amendments or articles work, generally. They are lofty and high minded, and then it's tough work actually passing legislation and regulation to enforce the goal. For example, "The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;". There's nothing specific in there about how to regulate commerce. Same applies to taxation powers. I think they're going for something similar here. "Congress shall have the power to regulate campaign finance." It's then up to them to not fuck it up (unlikely).I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think I would prefer some specific goals of campaign finance regulation written into and amendment itself, and have the SCOTUS uphold or knock down legislation based upon whether or not it supports those goals.
As much as I loathe Citizens United, that's not how separation of powers works. Yes, SCOTUS is depraved. No, that doesn't mean the legislative branch can pass laws saying "the judicial branch doesn't apply to us anymore."It would also prohibit the Supreme Court from reversing any future campaign finance legislation passed by Congress.
McConnell said the vote was a political stunt by Democrats ahead of the midterm elections
I agree. Take out the judicial prohibition nonsense and I'd support it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, even if Hell froze over and the GOP had to move their winter homes back to Texas, it still wouldn't pass the House. Tangentially, I'm going to be very depressed if Udall loses his election. He's one of the only Senators who had the balls to actively oppose NSA treason mass surveillance. Every other YouTube ad I hear is mudslinging him.
Yes it does. It is within Congress' power to introduce amendments, which override any previous constitutional interpretation by the Court. The Court gets to interpret the Constitution; Congress gets to change it. Congress reacts to Court decisions all the time, but usually on statutory interpretations. On statutory interpretations, they are free to pass a new law. On constitutional interpretations this is how it is done. The legislative branch is the ultimate authority of government. They have all the power, if they want to work together.As much as I loathe Citizens United, that's not how separation of powers works. Yes, SCOTUS is depraved. No, that doesn't mean the legislative branch can pass laws saying "the judicial branch doesn't apply to us anymore."
I'm not saying I think judicial decisions should be immortalized for all time. Society's understanding of morality changes over time, and government needs provisions to adapt. But separation of powers exists for a reason. If the Supreme Court throws out a bill and Congress immediately passes a new bill that says "everything before, and the judicial branch can't throw it out," that's not ok. The amendment process is a compromise. It seeks to allow changes to prior law and judicial precedent without giving the legislative branch overt power to disregard the judicial. The presumption is that anything capable of garnering 2/3 majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as approval of 3/4 of state legislatures, probably represents a fundamental shift in society, and ought be permitted to overrule prior law and precedent. I realize I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know. My point is, I understand government needs the ability to adapt to societal changes; but no one government branch should have the power to completely disregard another. I actually think the amendment process is pretty reasonable. What I don't think is reasonable, is for any legislator to vote for something which explicitly overrides the judicial branch, which they know doesn't have overwhelming societal or legislative support. Most certainly not something which prohibits future judicial intercession. They might as well have said "I believe in autocracy." Or perhaps, "When a legislator does it, that means it's not illegal."
Let me introduce you to your nation: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"doesn't mean the legislative branch can pass laws saying "the judicial branch doesn't apply to us anymore."