Proposal would allow the Legislature to override Supreme Court decisions.

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 to Florida's voters 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.

Elaborating on the philosophies behind his proposal in an essay posted on TheRevolutionaryAct. com, Gonzalez 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.

"Specifically not in the Constitution was an assignment to the judiciary of serving as the ultimate authority on the constitutionality of laws. And although the Legislature could always revamp a law the judiciary interpreted as meaning something different from what the Legislature intended, there was no provision that would allow the Legislature to override a ruling where the court voids a law as unconstitutional.

"With what most of us are taught about our government and our nation's history, it is difficult to conceive that the Supreme Court would not have such plenary authority in determining what is constitutional and what is not. After all, the members of the highest court are learned individuals inhabiting positions designed to insulate them from the world of...