Posted on 12/30/2003 6:43:17 PM PST by Federalist 78
Each social conservative attempt to write traditional values into national law violated its implicit agreement to use market or at least local government or community means to implement values rather than using the libertarian nemesis-the national welfare state.
The local solutions/laws governing traditional values are destroyed by the federal courts.
Get congress to limit jurisdiction of federal courts on abortion, the family, education, faith and the culture....and let the States have at it!
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2
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.
Over the last 200 years, Congress has exercised this authority to except certain areas from the jurisdiction of the federal court system. In Turner vs. Bank of North America 4 Dall. (4 U.S.,8(1799)),the Supreme Court concluded that the federal courts derive their judicial power from Congress, not the Constitution.
In Cary vs. Curtis 3 How, (44 U.S.), 236 (1845), a statute made final the decision of the secretary of the Treasury in certain tax deductions. The statute was challenged as an unconstitutional deprivation of the judicial power of the courts. The Supreme Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the federal courts (inferior to the Supreme Court) was in the sole power of Congress.
In Sheldon vs. Sill 8 How (49 U.S. 441 (1850)), involved the validity of the assignee clause of the Judicial Act of 1789 restricting such action to establish federal court jurisdictions. The Supreme Court sustained the power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts.
In Ex Parte McCardle 6 Wall. (73 U.S.) 318 (1868), the Supreme Court accepted review on certiorari of a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the circuit court. Congress, fearful the Supreme Court would honor the writ, passed a law repealing the act which authorized the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
In Lauf vs. E.G. Shinner & Co. 303 U.S. 323, 330 (1938), the Supreme Court upheld the power of Congress to define and limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States in the form restrictions on the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes under the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932.
In Lockerty v. Phillips 319 U.S. 182 (1943), Congress provided for a special court to appeal price control decisions under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The Supreme Court sustained this restriction.
In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today joined Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) in announcing the formation of the House Working Group On Judicial Accountability. The group will work to encourage responsible federal judiciary, and identify and prevent judicial activism.
"Co-chairs Lamar Smith and Steve Chabot have recruited a core of smart, tough and aggressive members, and based on the early meetings it's clear that when it comes to judicial abuses they're going to take no prisoners," DeLay said.
"We're going to address the problem of judicial activism at its roots and restore the U.S. Constitution as the North Star of the American judiciary," DeLay said.
This House working group will ensure that judges fulfill their duties without bias and without substituting their philosophy for the law. Some of their duties include:
Identify bad laws that invite judicial activism and hopefully recommend legislation that will prevent it in the future; Involve the House in more federal court nominations because we believe America deserves a United States Senate that will seriously consider this President's mainstream and qualified nominees and allow them a vote; Work with the Judiciary Committee on its vigorous oversight of the federal court system. In addition to Co-Chairs Smith and Chabot, working group members include Representative Todd Akin (R - Mo.), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R - Tenn.), Rep. John Carter (R - Texas), Rep. John Culberson (R - Texas), Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R - Florida), Rep. Tom DeLay (R - Texas), Rep. Tom Feeney (R - Fla.), Rep. Walter Jones (R - N.C.), Rep. Steve King (R - Iowa), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R - Colo.) and Rep. Joe Wilson (R - S.C.).
No kidding!
Bush is a "do it slower than the democrats" socialist.
"The Bush Administration, concerned about the closeness of the 2000 election, decided to move left to win moderate liberals.
It rejected Reaganism by increasing domestic discretionary spending on items like education, energy, tariffs, and agriculture and creating an entirely new $7 trillion prescription drug entitlement for seniors that will hasten Medicare's bankruptcy.
It adopted the old spend-spend, elect-elect strategy of the welfare state liberals."
Reagan's (and Bush I) expenditures ran 22%+ of the GDP, Clinton's "slash the military to shreds, and don't replace any ordnance" budget ran 19.7%, Bush's worst critics have his budget coming in at 21% of GDP.
And none of the previous three presidents had to contend with the nearly catasthropic economic aftermath of a devastating attack like what we all saw go down on 9/11.
"Why we are Conservatives"?
It should be because we are better informed than liberals...but we are not.
Russell Kirk: The state is often the greatest threat to traditional values and institutions.
I believe these statements. But instant gratification philosophy will always be more popular.
You know, Socrates, despite being oft-mislabeled a Sophist, was not at all into tearing down the prevailing traditional religious practices of his day.
You can't possibly be that thick, can you?
A lot of seniors can't afford to both eat, and buy needed medication, they are rapidly becoming the greatest voting block in the country (with the baby boomers starting to retire in droves).
What is YOUR solution to the issue of the high cost of prescription drugs.
Put up a solution NOW, because in another year, there will be many, many more retirees voting, and looking for help with their scrips.
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.