How terrifying is this?
Last year when the Supreme Court passed the verification of foreclosure complaints and mediation rules, the legislator was furious.
Now, it looks like they want to eliminate the courts from ever doing something like that again.
Get on the bus. Get to Tallahassee!
We don’t need the politicians making the court’s rules…
~
Amendment would give Legislature rules oversight
A constitutional amendment that would take court procedural rulemaking authority away from the Supreme Court and give it to the Legislature has been introduced in a House subcommittee that has been studying the issue.
PCB CVJS 11-01 would amend Art. V, Sec. 2, of the constitution. A second bill, PCB CVJS 11-02 would create legislation implementing the amendment, if it eventually passes the Legislature and is approved by voters.
Currently, Art. V, Sec. 2, provides that the Supreme Court has the authority to adopt practice and procedure rules for the court, and the Legislature may repeal any rule by a two-thirds vote of both chambers. It also includes some technical language about the court and the district courts of appeal submitting questions on military law for an advisory opinion to a special military appellate court.
The amendment repeals all of that, and instead specifies: “No court shall have the power, express or implied, to adopt rules for practice and procedure in any court. Court rules of practice and procedure may be recommended by the Supreme Court to be adopted, amended or rejected by the legislature in a manner prescribed by general law. If there is a conflict between general law and a court rule, the general law supersedes the court rule.”
Check out the rest here…
Amendments are below.
~
4closureFraud.org
~
You go Florida! We must keep calling out the lies, fraud and deception. Our own Politicians are clearly aiding and abettting the criminals and many more are complicate in the PONZI SCHEME. I think the people are gaining momentum.
“snips” from Marbury v. Madison
…So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that
, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath
————————————————————————————————————————————————–
which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits
——————————————————————————————————————————————————
may be passed at pleasure.
————————————–
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
The Constitution declares that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution
contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
“I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected
The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written.
The Constitution declares that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”
It is time for the Legislature to read or re- read Marbury v. Madison.