18. A Congressional Appeals Committee

.... Americans have been repeatedly dismayed by the decisions of activist judges, and disgusted with politically motivated judicial groups like the ACLU, who have learned to use our courts to fight our most wholesome laws and values. At present, nothing of consequence is being done about it. Yet a system for checking judicial excess was envisioned by the Constitutional framers and should finally be put into practice:

.... “...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."

(U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Second Paragraph)

.... Each house should establish committees to review the most egregious judicial decisions and recommend 'Exceptions’ as mentioned above. This means, for example, that the basic doctrine of a separation between church and state would remain intact under the First Amendment; yet a specific exception might be made in allowing the term ‘One Nation Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. Such exceptions would be reviewed individually, each on the basis of their own merit, and the exception would apply only to the cases in question.

.

.... Once an item is approved for exception in each committee, the proposed items would be recommended in the respective houses of Congress. To be approved, each item should require a 2/3 majority in both houses..

....The Constitutional clause itself would allow for a simple majority in creating an exception, but a 2/3 majority is probably a better measure for overriding another branch of the government, in this case the judiciary. As another reflection of the same principle, a 2/3 majority might have been enough to amend the Constitution itself, so the legitimacy of a mere exception by this measure cannot be seriously questioned.

.... The same clause would give Congress power to vacate executive orders which were issued through a government agency that Congress, itself, had created. Basically, the executive order was a way to circumvent Congress, and the committee would be calling it back on the carpet for a legitimate vote.

.... However, a simple majority should be enough to cancel an executive order. The president was circumventing the system and this would take him back where he should have gone in the first place. To require a 2/3 majority for repeal would is the same as accepting a 1/3 vote for approval. This is far easier to obtain and far more expedient, from the President's point of view. It would therefore reward his bad conduct with a better chance of success.

.... It should be carefully noted that, in order for this system to work, these exceptions must be presented individually or in a package that would allow line-item exceptions by the Legislators who review them. This could be done through the Line-Item Legislation format, except that the President would not be a part of the process.
.
.... Finally, to be effective, this protective measure must work through a system that the people may fairly resort to.