Posted on 09/23/2004 6:00:16 PM PDT by Doc AZ
House votes to limit Federal court’s authority! (Implications?)
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/428894|top|09-23-2004::16:46|reuters.html
An interesting discussion question for my Freeper friends.
As I remember (I could be wrong, G*d knows I am quite often) the American Constitution states that the legislative branch has the authority to set the jurisdiction of the Court.
And as I also remember, after the ratification of the Constitution, the Supreme Court (of it’s own volition) expanded it’s authority to allow it to declare whether any law is constitutional. Taken to the extreme that authority could allow the creation of an American judicial tyranny. (Or a 12 person oligarchy)
But the bill passed today, if also passed by the Senate and signed by the President, would set a definite limit on the jurisdiction of the court.
It would prevent the court from being able to rule as to whether the, under God phrase, (in the pledge of allegiance) is constitutional.
If that is so, couldn’t the legislature remove multiple other social issues (i.e. mono-sexual marriage, et all) from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
And also, if this (judicial jurisdictional limitation) bill passes, could the court invalidate it by declairing it unconstitutional?
I look forward to your imput.
Most Sincerely,
Doc AZ
I believe you are correct in all you stated. I would not however hold my breath that Congress and the Senate will both pass any jurisdictional limits.
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Don't forget that there is an alternate path for a case to get to the SCOTUS. The case can come up through a state system, and then be heard by the high court on the constitutional issues.
Article III:
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
To the extent that there is any confusion in meaning between the two clauses, who gets to interpret it? The Federal Courts.
They need to. The courts have spent the last decade severely OVERSTEPPING their authority. Congress makes the laws...the courts uphold them. If Congress says jump, the courts should be asking "How High?", not telling Congress they don't have the authority.
Our judicial system sucks...I'm sick of it.
There is the good behaviour clause concerning the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court (translation: you're fired if we want to fire you, signed, the Legislature) and the orginal intention of the Consitution: That men shall govern themselves in line with the Constitution they created. We The People.
The Supreme Court is no different then any other Court, or Legislature, or Executive Branch, or the people in that their actions are to be executed with respect to the Constitution. If that action goes against the Constitution (and it was not an accident or a mistake in the way that the Constitution binds all the branches of government and the people to it) clearly states that ONLY the people have the power to change the Constitution.
The constitution clearly guarantees that there will be Freedom of Religion. If that freedom is to be diminished in any way, or completely obliterated, it can only be done by the people via a constitutional amendment.
The short of it. Courts are not allowed to make new law. That falls to the legislature. Courts can send it back to congress if it doesn't pass Constitutional muster.
So, who are the courts to tell the people that saying the pledge of allegiance with the words "Under God" is not permissable? Is that a law, or against the constitution?
Show me where in the constitution it says that if someobody is offended by your religion, you have to keep it out of sight and out of their hearing.
You appear to believe what they taught you in civics class. The Supreme Court has 'redefined' the constitution several times, most notoriously under FDR's threat to pack the court. In other cases, they have just invented new "rights" with no constitutional basis whatsoever. How many Supreme Court justices have been impeached?
The legislature doesn't do what the people want; they do what they are told by the lobbyists with access to the biggest bankrolls.
The short of it- Courts do make new law all of the time, and nothing is done about it.
And by the way - the "people" have no say on constitutional amendments.
And by the way - the "people" have no say on constitutional amendments.
Directly, no. I didn't mean it that way. But they do vote for those who have that say.
Those choices could be a lot better imho.
How many House races are truly contested this year at either the primary race involving the eventual winner or in the general election? 5% or less? What about Senate seats? 10% or so? Almost all of the contested races are for open seats or where 2 incumbents were pitted against each other.
Oath taken by Respresentatives and Senators:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
This seems like a clear charge to me. Support and Defend the Constitution. It doesn't say anything about letting Judges rewrite it.
As you correctly point out, replacing members who are not adhering to this oath is a slow process especially in light of the current near split. Moreover, I think the movement to put the breaks on runaway courts is just now beginning to catch on. The process would surely accelerate if the people were more aware of the problem and made their voices heard not only in elections but in actively contacting their representatives and letting them know in no uncertain terms that they expect them to abide by the oath they have taken.
The people are also charged to support and defend the Constitution. Sadly it isn't until some rogue court or Mayor tries to shove something as outrageous as gay marriage down their throats that they start to pay attention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.