If the Florida Supreme Court strikes down a law passed by the Legislature, Rep. Julio Gonzalez, R-Venice, a lawyer and orthopedic surgeon, wants lawmakers to be able to strike back and overrule the high court.
Gonzalez has filed House Joint Resolution 121, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the Legislature, within a period of five years, to override court decisions that find legislative actions unconstitutional.
Gonzalez also filed an accompanying communication to Congress asking that a similar proposed amendment to the United States Constitution be passed.
He said it was Thomas Jefferson who first identified the problem of the judiciary’s role in overturning rules it found to be unconstitutional.
In a letter to Jarvis Williams in 1820, Jefferson wrote: “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Gonzalez argues his proposed “Notwithstanding Clause” is needed to restore the balance of power among the three branches of government, and notes that Canada has had such a provision in its constitution that has been “working seamlessly” since 1982.
“At its implementation, our system of government was truly exceptional on the world stage because, among other reasons, its power was vested on the will of the people. Key to the protection of this reliance was the separation of power into three separate and co-equal branches of government restricted by a robust system of checks and balances,” Gonzalez wrote.
In his essay, Gonzalez lists the judiciary’s “encroachments” that include Supreme Court rulings mandating that religious symbols be taken down from public places and prohibitions on prayer in public school events.
“And let us recall that these members are generally appointed to their positions without oversight by the electorate and generally remain there for the rest of their lives,” wrote Gonzalez.
He proposes these constitutional amendments:
For Florida: “Any law, resolution, or other legislative act declared void by the supreme court, district court of appeal, circuit court, or county court of this state may be deemed active and operational, notwithstanding the court’s ruling, if agreed to by the Legislature pursuant to a joint resolution adopted by a two-thirds vote of each house within five years after the date that the ruling becomes final. Such a joint resolution is exempt from section 8 of this article and shall take effect immediately upon passage.”
For the U.S. Constitution: “Any law, resolution, or other legislative act declared void by the Supreme Court of the United States or any district court of appeal may be deemed active and operational, notwithstanding the court’s ruling, if agreed to by the Legislature pursuant to a joint resolution adopted by a 60 percent vote of each chamber within five years after the date that the ruling becomes final. Such a joint resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.”
Gonzalez argues if these provisions were enacted by voters, it “would curtail the tendency of activist judges to manipulate the law to suit their political views and agendas. This would also force the electorate to more carefully look at their candidates and their actions during times of re-election.”