Page:EO 14023 Commission Final Report.pdf/199

 # See Bobbitt Testimony, supra note 1, at 6, 12; Feldman Testimony, supra note 1, at 8; Eugene V. Rostow, The Democratic Character of Judicial Review, 66 193, 197 (1952); Jack M. Balkin & Sanford Levinson, Understanding the Constitutional Revolution, 87  1045, 1069 (2001); Robert Post & Reva Siegel, Questioning Justice: Law and Politics in Judicial Confirmation Hearings, 115  38, 39 (2006); Bruce Ackerman, The Living Constitution, 120  1737, 1805 (2007); NeJaime & Siegel, supra note 1.
 * 1) We note that any future elaboration of these proposals would require addressing a number of technical concerns that we have chosen not to analyze here because of their specificity. These include how the proposals might be drafted to encompass cases brought as both facial and as-applied challenges and how to take into account the range of remedies available to courts. Relatedly, we note that most of the proposals discussed below do not address another suite of concerns critics raise: that courts sometimes exercise power to rewrite statutes or to arrogate power to themselves by giving statutes meaning, including through the practice of constitutional avoidance.
 * 2) See, e.g., S. 158, 97th Cong. (1981); H.R. 867, 97th Cong. (1981); H.R. 900, 97th Cong. (1981).
 * 3) See, e.g., S. 1742, 97th Cong. (1981); H.R. 4364, 109th Cong. (2005).
 * 4) See, e.g., Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § 3403(e)(5), 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(r)(3).
 * 5) See, e.g., S. 4058, 90th Cong. (1968).
 * 6) See, e.g., H.R. 2389, 109th Cong. (2005).
 * 7) See, e.g., H.R. 3313, 108th Cong. (2004); H.R. 4379, 109th Cong. (2005).
 * 8) See Christopher Jon Sprigman, Congress’s Article III Power and the Process of Constitutional Change, 95  1778, 1785 (2020).
 * 9) See generally Doerfler & Moyn, supra note 2.
 * 10) See, e.g., Dixon Testimony, supra note 5, at 8–9.
 * 11)  art. III, § 2, cl. 2 (emphasis added).
 * 12) Forsyth v. United States, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 571, 572 (1850).
 * 13)  art. III, § 1, cl. 1.
 * 14) An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States, ch. 20, § 11, 1 Stat. 73, 78 (1789) [hereinafter Judiciary Act of 1789].
 * 15) Charles Warren, Legislative and Judicial Attacks on the Supreme Court of the United States—A History of the Twenty-Fifth Section of the Judiciary Act, 47  161, 163–64 (1913).
 * 16) William W. Van Alstyne, A Critical Guide to Ex Parte McCardle, 15  229, 238 (1973). During the Reconstruction Era, Congress enacted the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867 in part to enforce new federal protections for civil rights and civil liberties. The Act sought “to ‘regularize’ federal military jurisdiction in the South by dividing the region into districts subject to military command.” Id. at 236.
 * 17) 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868).
 * 18) 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 128 (1871).
 * 19) Id. at 146.
 * 20) 29 U.S.C. §§ 101–102.
 * 21) 303 U.S. 323 (1938).
 * 22) 28 U.S.C. § 1342.
 * 23) Id. § 1341.
 * 24) Such proposed legislation has frequently triggered debates about constitutional permissibility in both Congress and the executive branch. See Tara Leigh Grove, The Structural Safeguards of Federal Jurisdiction, 124  869, 900–16, 920–27 (2011); Tara Leigh Grove, The Article II Safeguards of Federal Jurisdiction, 112  250, 268–86 (2012).
 * 25) See, e.g., S. 3930, 109th Cong. (2006).
 * 26) See, e.g., H.R. 13915, 92d Cong. (1972).