Skip to comments.Bill Would Block U.S. Supreme Court From Ruling on Pledge...
Posted on 09/24/2004 7:49:43 PM PDT by AKSurprise
"A bill passed by Congress on Thursday would strip the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts of the authority to hear cases regarding the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 247-173. It still needs approval of the U.S. Senate, which is unlikely to advance the bill this year."
(Excerpt) Read more at news10.net ...
Good. This matter needs to be settled so that every little liberal that gets a hair up their #@$ can't run to a federal court to get this banned.
Article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution lets Congress limit the Supreme Court's power to hear appeals: "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.
"And Congress may also strip lower federal courts of jurisdiction because their jurisdiction and even their existence (see Article III, section 2, clause 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"
It is said that the congress already has the constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts.
IF this is so, the Supreme Court could not rule the move unconstitutional. However, I do agree with you that getting the right judges (those that don't legislate) on the courts is the best way. However, the Dems use palimentary tricks to block votes.
BTW-Can someone quote the part of the Constitution that supposedly gives the congress power to limit courts jurisdictions?
The problem is there's some clear limitations in the Constitution designed to limit what Congress can impose on the Supreme Court, and rightfully so to keep the balance of power between the branches as intended by those who drafted it. While I agree re: liberal judges the REAL problem is the ability of Congress to so easily block the appointment of judges by the President. That is what keeps Republican presidents from putting good judges in place.
Don't misunderstand me...I'm all for keeping Under God in the pledge but one branch of government attempting to limit the power of another sets a dangerous precedent.
This exception clause was intended by the Founders to be one of the checks and balances. Nobody paid much attention to it for a long time, since the Judiciary was considered the "Least Dangerous Branch." Because Liberals rely on it to establish policy they can't get through the legislatures, they scream bloody murder anytime someone contemplates using it. They are scared to do that on this issue, this close to an election.
Yes, but when this is adjudicated (as it will be), who hears the case? We've been heading for this Constitutional crisis since at least Earl Warren days. I agree with the poster who said "civil war."
Sounds good and I am aware of that argument. The verbiage is / was the basis of the law. BUT, as I recall there were laws against desecration of the flag, perhaps Congress didn't remove the Supreme Courts rights on those. I wish I could agree with you, but I don't. If this verbiage is sucessful, and I hope it is, Roe V Wade falls using the same hammer.
So, a few more laws after that with the same vebiage and either there is no Supreme Ct or the is a revolution.
And, of course, nine black-robed dictators will declare the law null and void because it invalidates their absolute power to dictate how we live. Then what?
Only problem with action is that while this stops federal courts from hearing cases, it does not prevent state courts from hearing them. So we could end up with the Pledge being legal in some states and not in others.
In reading the article, as I suspected, the act is called "constitutional issue". To me this means a BIG fight
The power is there. Congress can remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Jesse Helms threatened to do that with abortion, but the congressional will just wasn't there.
The threat of invoking exception jurisdiction did give many federal judges pause in the 1980s, however. Federal law became much more coherent in many different areas, partly because of the quality of Reagan appointees, but also because Republicans often threatened to remove controversial issues.
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.
According to section 3 Kerry ought to be hanged for giving aid and comfort to terrorists...
To summarize what other posters have noted . . .
Of the three branches, Congress is first among equals. The Founders intentionally placed the final word regarding controversial issues in the governmental body which most broadly represented the will of the people.
That's why control of the Congress is so important.
The imperial presidency (since FDR) is a bit of a historical aberration. The perceived supremacy of the US Supreme Court is just that - - Perceived.
The Congress is where the power lies (or more correctly, the power of the sovereign people as represented by the Congress). The Supreme Court is constrained by the Constitution to render decisions subject to the superior authority of the Congress. This keeps the S.C. from becoming the defacto dictators for life that the liberals seem to want them to become.
The Constitution is a magnificent document. More Americans should read and understand it.
well "Yer honer, I respectfully disagree if you think the law will pass and stand"...been over 200 years and NOW you think of this...
All the more reason to get the nation's @1 obstructionist, Little Tommy Dashole defeated come November. GIVE AFEW BUCKS TO JOHN THUNE!
Well, you have a discussion going. Some even think they can resolve the matter here!
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.