Constitutional question

[bigmacbear]

I read with increasing frequency provisions inserted into various pieces of legislation that purport to prohibit review of that legislation by any court, up to and including the Supreme Court. (Such a clause, for instance, is present in the heinous Military Commissions Act of 2006.)

It would be interesting to hear from someone well-versed in Constitutional law as to whether the courts may be bound by such provisions, or whether such provisions are unconstitutional on their face and thus not binding upon the courts.

Comments

[teddyb.livejournal.com]

I'm no legal scholar, but I have to believe that even the current Supreme Court, stacked as it now is with Bush appointees, would strike down any such provision as an unreasonable reach beyond the powers of the Executive Branch into what is clearly the territory of the Judicial Branch.

Like you, though, I'd be very interested to hear the view of someone who studies Constitutional law.

[thezzyzx.livejournal.com]

Don't see how it is alas.

Check out Article III Section 2:

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.

That's a pretty serious mistake there by the framers. They should have required a rule that it needs a 2/3 vote or something, instead of giving Congress a blank check.