zlacker

You misunderstand the law completely in your comment and your edit. Congress (with good reason) doesn't get to shape the boundaries of constitutional law (for example the doctrine of qualified immunity we're discussing here).

That is specifically and only in the hands of the court, unless you want to amend the constitution.

>>bobbyd+(OP)
Sorry, but you are the one who completely misunderstands the law and the USA's system of government. Congress is the ONLY branch of the government which gets to shape the boundaries of constitutional law. You say it yourself in your second paragraph: Congress has plenary power to shape the boundaries of constitutional law via amendments. The judiciary only has power when the legislature has not spoken, and that power should, theoretically, be constrained to mapping the smallest contours of the constitution because delineating the shape of the boundary is Congress's domain (some would say it is their most important duty, which they have neglected for the past half century).

>>bobbyd+(OP)
Qualified immunity is not constitutional. It supposedly derives from the common law, so congress can change it through ordinary legislation.

>>abduhl+Q8
No, I'm sorry, because you are the one who complete misunderstands the law and the US system of government.

>Congress is the ONLY branch of the government which gets to shape the boundaries of constitutional law.

Yeah, no. Not even close. Are you familiar with Miranda, Brown v. Board, Obergefell and dozens or hundreds of others? These are all the supreme court shaping the boundaries of constitutional law. Congress has zero power to intefere here. If Congress passed a law trying to outlaw gay marriage tomorrow, it would be unconstitutional and unenforceable immediately.

You say it yourself in your second paragraph: Congress has plenary power to shape the boundaries of constitutional law via amendments.

No, I didn't say that. Congress does not have "plenary power" (not a single actor in US government has plenary power). Constitutional amendments require approval by states, so if you think I was saying congress had plenary power over anything, you misread.

>he judiciary only has power when the legislature has not spoken, and that power should, theoretically, be constrained to mapping the smallest contours of the constitution because delineating the shape of the boundary is Congress's domain (some would say it is their most important duty, which they have neglected for the past half century).

Not true at all. The Supreme Court can rule any legislative act of congress unconstitutional. Congress can make whatever law it wants and Scotus can say "nope". I love that someone who doesn't know about Marbury v. Madison is attempting to lecture me on constitutional law.

>>bobbyd+Pd
This is all nitpicking about process and doesn't change the ultimate conclusion regarding Congress's power. Name one other branch of the federal government that has the power to change what the constitution says. Not what it means, but what it actually says. If one does not exist besides Congress then Congress has plenary power.

The Supreme Court cannot rule an amendment unconstitutional.

>>abduhl+Ge
> The Supreme Court cannot rule an amendment unconstitutional.

Well, duh. If Constitution is ammended, the new stuff can’t be “unconstitutional” because it’s literally part of the Constitution.

Besides, you’re the one nitpicking. Sure, the Supreme Court can’t change the Constitution, but their job is to interpret it. The First and Fifth Amendment don’t make any mention of technology, but the Supreme Court has ruled that those protections apply to technological speech and searches.

>>bobbyd+(OP)
> That is specifically and only in the hands of the court, unless you want to amend the constitution.

The Constitution nowhere says that the Supreme Court has the sole ability or power to "shape the boundaries of constitutional law". It grants the Supreme Court "judicial power", but judicial power is not the only power related to the law.

>>colejo+Gg
I am not nitpicking. The original poster said: "Congress (with good reason) doesn't get to shape the boundaries of constitutional law (for example the doctrine of qualified immunity we're discussing here)." and that the power to shape the boundaries of constitutional law is "specifically and only in the hands of the court." His assertion is flat out incorrect, and I responded by saying that Congress has plenary power to shape the borders of constitutional law. Why did I say this? Because Congress has the unique ability to amend the constitution.

Your sarcastic comment is exactly my point. If Congress has the power to make something literally part of the Constitution then they literally have the power to shape the boundaries of constitutional law because they literally have the power to rewrite the Constitution. And if Congress is the only entity with that power then their power is plenary. Which is to say that the power to shape the boundaries of constitutional law is not something that is specifically and only in the hands of the Court.

>>abduhl+qj
If Congress has the power to make something literally part of the Constitution then they literally have the power to shape the boundaries of constitutional law because they literally have the power to rewrite the Constitution.

Ex falso quodlibet. Congressional action is not sufficient to alter the Constitution.

>>pdonis+1i
Check out Marbury v. Madison.

>>bobbyd+iF
I'm quite familiar with Marbury v. Madison; it does not give the Supreme Court the sole ability or power to "shape the boundaries of constitutional law" either. It simply defines a key part of what "judicial power" means.

>>pdonis+X21
And "judicial power" includes the sole power to shape the boundaries of con law.

Who do you think can determine the boundaries of con law?