Providing for Consideration of H.R. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year Providing for Consideration of S. Protecting Our Gold Star Families Education Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Women's Health Protection Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Active Shooter Alert Act of and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, the Constitution grants Congress the power over the size and composition of the judiciary. The Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent laws established this structure.

Since 1869, the number of Justices has been fixed at nine. Congress has the authority to change that number. Whether Congress should exercise this authority is another question entirely, and whether Congress should exercise that authority in a 50/50 Senate and a single- digit majority in the House is another question.

In Sykes v. United States, Justice Scalia wrote: ``It should be no surprise that as the volume'' of law ``increases, so do the number of imprecise laws. . . . Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the- courts legislation is attractive to the Congressman who wants credit'' without dealing with ``the nitty-gritty.''

The real problem is that Congress doesn't want to deal with the nitty-gritty. We want to fundraise off of top-line messages and vague legislative text.

We write ambiguous law that leaves important details and major questions to unelected bureaucrats. The decisions of those unelected bureaucrats inevitably are left to be sorted out by the courts. The Court is merely doing its job to say what the law is.

Our reaction should be to take back our Article I authority and to clearly articulate congressional intent. If we write detailed laws, judges will properly implement Congress' intent.

Instead, too many in this body seek to exploit congressional inaction, choosing to double down on fundraising pleas by bashing the courts and promising to pack judges onto the Court to guarantee their preferred outcome.

Here is a better idea. If you can't pass the Clean Power Plan through Congress, don't ask the EPA to implement it and then feign outrage when the Court says, no, that is not how a democratic republic is supposed to work.

James Madison said Congress would fight to the death to protect its Article I authority. Unfortunately, I think what we have seen is that Congress will fight to the death to maintain their membership in Congress.

Now, the one way in which far too many on the left want to exert our Article I authority is to pack the Court so Congress can continue to outsource legislating to the bureaucratic state and then ensure the Court gives them the decision they would like.

Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to defeat the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source