File this story under checks and balances. 2301s are studying the separated powers this week, and how this separation is maintained by a system of checks and balances. As we will see, some of these are spelled out in the Constitution (the veto, overriding vetoes, Senate confirmation of appointments etc...), while others have evolved over time (judicial review, oversight, etc...).
In the spirit of the latter, here's a story about how Congress is attempting to get around recent Supreme Court decisions by rewriting laws - and proposing amendments - to explicitly, if not negate, temper the impact of those decisions:
Two years after the court drastically altered the landscape of campaign finance rules with its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, some legislators are still trying to write new disclosure laws that comport with the ruling. Separately, a handful of senators are seeking to draw more attention to their proposed constitutional amendment explicitly allowing Congress to regulate campaign funding.
Another 2010 decision, Skilling v. United States , is also still reverberating in the Capitol. With the ruling having gutted an oft-used tool for prosecuting federal corruption cases, the House and Senate split last week on whether new anti-bribery language should be included in the STOCK Act, which seeks to ban insider trading by members.
Members of Congress argue - without explicitly saying so - that the dispute ultimately stems from the basic difference in the design of each institution:
A common theme for congressional critics of the court is that the nine justices don’t live in the real world, particularly when it comes to modern politics.
“I’m not sure they grasped the practical effects of the decision they were rendering,” Sen. Michael F. Bennet (D-Colo.), a co-sponsor of the constitutional amendment on campaign finance, suggested last week.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the amendment’s lead author, complained: “None of the Supreme Court justices have run for office in this system. I don’t think they understand.”
The last sentence is especially telling - they don't have to run for office for the explicit reason that they are not intended to be tied into any external constituency. They are free to interpret the laws and the Constitution as they see fit. And then there's this:
“This is saying to the court: ‘We are going to regulate and legislate on campaign finance. We are taking it back,’ ” Udall said.
While this story focuses on current disputes, this type of conflict is actually quite common throughout US history. In fact the first amendment added to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights - the 11th Amendment - was written following an unpopular Supreme Court decision. So there's nothing truly new here, but it does point out the flexible nature of the checks and balances.
