Your mistake is thinking I'm a democrat, I'm independent. I hold both parties in Equal disdain.
The republicans have had the congress and senate since 1994.... The Real power is in the legislative branch. The Executive branch has overstepped their bounds during this administration. I'm not giving the Clinton Administration pass when it comes to dealing with domestic problems, although I believe had Katrina had happened during his administration things would have been a lot different. (sometimes throwing money at the problem is the right thing to do)
You want evidence of pissing on the Constitution, look no further than the Patriot Act. The patriot act violates 6 amendments of the constitution that I can think of off the top of my head.
On other matters. here you go.....
There were a couple of attempts going on to prevent the federal courts from being able to review any laws dealing with particular issues. Tired of the courts striking down violations of the Constitution, some Republicans don't want the courts to have any say at all anymore. These aren't conservative Republicans, these are radical Republicans advocating lawlessness.
If Congress has the authority to tell the Supreme Court that certain issues are off-limits, it would give legislators a free hand to do whatever they wished, without worrying about whether it violated the Constitution. The whole idea of a separation of powers could be rendered null and void if that happened.
And unfortunately, it could. The provision in question, Article III, Section 2, gives the federal courts the power to decide a broad range of cases, including challenges to the constitutionality of federal laws. However, it also grants the courts that power "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Theoretically, that allows Congress to pass a law -- say, making it a felony to criticize members of Congress -- and then forbid the courts to review such a law. It could allow government to tap our phones without a warrant, or toss dissidents into prison without trial, and refuse to allow the courts to intervene.
That's why the provision has remained obscure and largely untested. Previous generations of politicians, even in the heat of intense battle, have understood and respected the potential damage it could do. They saw it as a Pandora's box that once opened could threaten not just our constitutional liberties but the whole concept of a balance of powers among the judicial, legislative and executive branches.
BTW, I thought you were studying law, it seems that I may have a good understanding of the constitution as well. 
Nice parroting of a news article from this link...
The Lawless Republican Congress
<QUOTE>
From
Austin Cline,
Your Guide to
Agnosticism / Atheism.
FREE Newsletter.
Sign Up Now!
The Lawless Republican Congress
There are a couple of attempts going on to prevent the federal courts from being able to review any laws dealing with particular issues. Tired of the courts striking down violations of the Constitution, some Republicans don't want the courts to have any say at all anymore. These aren't
conservative Republicans, these are
radical Republicans advocating lawlessness. Writing for
BuzzFlash, Maureen Farrell quotes Jay Bookman:
If Congress has the authority to tell the Supreme Court that certain issues are off-limits, it would give legislators a free hand to do whatever they wished, without worrying about whether it violated the Constitution. The whole idea of a separation of powers could be rendered null and void if that happened.
And unfortunately, it could. The provision in question, Article III, Section 2, gives the federal courts the power to decide a broad range of cases, including challenges to the constitutionality of federal laws. However, it also grants the courts that power "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Theoretically, that allows Congress to pass a law -- say, making it a felony to criticize members of Congress -- and then forbid the courts to review such a law. It could pass a law making Christianity the national religion, and bar the courts from hearing a challenge. It could allow government to tap our phones without a warrant, or toss dissidents into prison without trial, and refuse to allow the courts to intervene.
That's why the provision has remained obscure and largely untested. Previous generations of politicians, even in the heat of intense battle, have understood and respected the potential damage it could do. They saw it as a Pandora's box that once opened could threaten not just our constitutional liberties but the whole concept of a balance of powers among the judicial, legislative and executive branches.
</QUOTE>
All you did was take out the part that is red, underlined, bold and in italics. But that was a nice try though. Wanna try again and this time form your own opinions and not parrot some news report.
