[r00fus]

Little known fact: Congress can actually legislate around that by removing the possibility of judicial review from the law itself.

[Gormo]

Little known, I suspect, on account of being entirely false.

[JumpCrisscross]

> on account of being entirely false

Congress can absolutely limit judicial review by statute. (It can’t remove it entirely.)

[westurner]

Shouldn't that require a Constitutional Amendment?

Such a law would bypass Constitutional Separation of Powers (with limited privileges and immunities) i.e. checks and balances.

Why isn't the investigative/prosecutorial branch distinct from the executive and judicial branches though?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Shouldn't that require a Constitutional Amendment?

No, Article III § 1 explicitly vests judicial power “in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” [1].

> Why isn't the investigative/prosecutorial branch distinct from the executive and judicial branches though?

What do you think executing laws means?

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#ar...

[westurner]

No, to change the separation of powers they need a constitutional amendment because that's a change to the Constitution, and amendments are the process for changing the Constitution.

To interpret what was meant by Liberty and Equality as values, as a strict constructionist.

[JumpCrisscross]

> to change the separation of powers they need a constitutional amendment because that's a change to the Constitution

The Constitution literally says the Congress has the power to establish inferior courts. Congress setting what is justifiable is highly precedented.

The words “separation of powers” never appear in the Constitution. It’s a phrase used to describe the system that document establishes.

[r00fus]

This is exactly what I meant, and is described in this pdf: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44967

[staticman2]

Congress cannot do that.