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!
Hey, I didn't write the Constitution...I just happened to read it...I think I understood it pretty well.
(Irish Mist for me tonight . . . Fiance's out of town so I'm freeping solo . . . )
Here's a thread started up on this topic. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1225293/posts
Far from being very knowledgeable on this, I do believe that the constitution not only binds all government to it, but the people as well.
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."
They are bound to protect and defend the Constitution. I don't see where it says they have to sit back and let judges legislate from the bench and change the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution empowers them (the legislature) to that end.
But heck, I'm just a citizen, and like most citizens I was not going to sit up and take notice of any of this until some Judge was shoving gay marriage down my throat, or something equally as outrageous.
Well, they've got my attention now.
See: Marbury v. Madison, 1803-----The answer is found to your fondest wish to eliminate the three branches of government and abolish the separation of powers.
This is excellent. The federal courts were supposed to assist Congress, not run the country. That's why their jurisdiction is determined by Congress, except in a few cases specified in the Constitution.
I am aware of one American who would benefit understanding gained from study of the Constitution that no branch of government is either superior or subordinate to any other branch. His pen-name is Filbert. We are not an Orwellian society where: "All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others." All of the hand-wringing, teeth-gnashing and fervent wishing will not make it so.
When the Lil lady comes back remember:
Definition of Bravery....
True bravery is arriving home late after a boy's night out, being assaulted by your gal with a broom, and still having the guts to ask --
"Are you cleaning or were you flying somewhere?"
This is a limit to lower courts. The Constitution still holds that the SC is the Supreme Court of the Land.
And I again note my objection to this bill, as it is unconstitutional. Congress does not have the authority to limit the scope of judicial power.
That's why we were given teeth.....2nd Amendment.
Be careful what you try to jam down an Americans throat. They may just bite it off!
Point being? Yes the SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the land by definition.
And by definition Congress can "exclude" the SCOTUS from that which is not under the "original jurisdiction" of the SCOUTS as defined in the Constitution.
Congress is the check on the federal judiciary and the "exclusion" clause is a major player in that check.
So there is no check on an unelected federal judiciary?
On the one hand, those who simply dislike the present and recent Supreme Court and the inferior courts as well, protest that the Constitution is an immutable and static docment with entrenched and never changing meanings. On the other, they, at the same time, protest that Congress, not the Court should be the arbiter of what the Constitution says and means by its obtuse language. The paradox of that inconsistency is that Congress, as a representative body changes frequently and the mood of the constituents they represent change with current events and non-judical issues. Example, enacting a law making it unlawful to be a member of the Communist Party in the 1950s. That was to satisfy the madding crowd and the fear of that ideology. Congress' history is replete with similar examples of enacting legislation that mollifies the public's craving for some form of action, but is contrary to the organic law of the Constitution.
Passing fads and fancies underlying the majority's response are a poor basis for the foundational law that supports the democratic system. If there is to be a consistent and immutable law of the land, it must come from the legal authority --- and that suthority and consistency is the Constitution and it is the Supreme Court which has the power of judicial review to determine the constitutionality or not of each act of Congress. That was settled in 1803 with the case of Marbury v. Madison and has been the Law of the Land since.
Disaffected and single issue political groups have always been unhappy with the power exercised by the Courts, but that discontent is the best demonstration that the system works and needs to remain un-tinkered with.
Constituional amendment what?
The United States Constitution Section 3, Article 2:
... 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.
There can be no judicial power vested in a legislative body lest we totally abolish our successful concept of separation of powers. Indeed, the Constitution vests (to paraphrase) "All judicial powers shall be vested in the Supreme Court-------etc" While it may sound like an anomaly, the Supreme Court has plenary power to determine its own jurisdiction.
It is not, contrary to popular belief, a court of unlimted common law jurisdiction. It's jurisdiction is enumerated as cases and controversies that arise under the common law of England as it existed on July 3, 1776, statutory law of the U.S. (ie: enactments of Congress that fit within the parameters of the U.S. Constitutional authority and limitations), and treaties entered into and ratified by the Senate and issues arising under the Constitution (ie: no equity jurisdiction).
Thus, contrary to state courts that enjoy unlimited common law and equity jurisdiction, federal courts are limited in what they can exercise their jurisdiction. Example, the federal courts' authority to issue common law writs is defined by an act of Congress establishing the ability to issue such writs. If it were a court of unlimited jurisdiction, congressional action would be unnecessary.
"Legislate from the Bench" is a meaningless phrase that merely indicates the person uttering that rubric: (1) hasn't the slightest idea of constitutional jurisprudence. There's nothing wrong with not understanding such a complex and virtually all-consuming subject. But, one should know the limits of his understanding and recognize that catchy phrases do not substitute for a depth of knowledge...and......(2) indicates that the person uttering that banality merely disagrees with the object of his contempt.
They get most of their power by default. Through the years Congress has ducked the controversial tough issues and let the courts make the call.
The reason they do so is so they can ride the fence and not lose votes from either side. They can let the courts make the call and then blame them.
The courts don't mind they get the power to make decisions that Congress should make, but don't have the guts to, and they don't have to stand for election and face the people.
That diatribe couldn't be more erroneous. It is so totally wrong as a matter of fact, law or American history as to not warrant any attempt to inform or educate the person offering such an absurdity as rationale' for decisions with which he apparently disagrees. MR-N, please continue to believe whatever your inclination, prejudice, political orientation, or excuse for not knowing how to voice a legitimate argument may take you. But the clap-trap ecpressed in your last post ain't it.
They can write a law say like it is against the law to have an abortion except in case of rape or incest etc. and at the end of put in something like this: this law is not subject to judicial review.
Then the court would have to go to the Constitution and see if it falls under their purview to just to hear the case must less rule on it.
Most people would be shocked to know just how little the Constitution actually gives them the right to hear.It never gave them the right to hear any case that was bought before it or any case they might want to hear. It was and is strictly limited.
It is, if the Constitution is followed the weakest of the three branches, followed by the Executive, with the strongest being the Legislative.
The Founders gave the most power to the ones who had to answer to the people, most often and most directly, as it should be.
I see that as the weak point in your argument. The Constitution has been virtually abandoned by the branch of government designed to interpret it: the Supreme Court. If Congress tries to bring the Court to heel I predict a Constitutional crisis. The Left never bothers to go by the law. It rules by demagoguery and lies.
It may not be much but it is mine and one of the things as an American I am entitled to no matter how bad an opinion it may seem to you.
I have been wrong before and my opinion can be changed by intelligent and polite conversation.
There was no reason to attack me personally or dismiss my opinion in such a rude manner.
There are some are areas of knowledge I come up short in. I admit I have needs.
There are however a couple of things I do not need. One is a lesson in humility. I had several good ones in it.
Another is a lesson in manners . My parents give me several in that area.
You might want to brush up on the one in manners.
As for the one in humility, don't worry about it. It will show when you lest expect it.
Oh well, free speech and all.
For the undereducated like myself, legislate from the bench is what a court does when it reinterprates the law to reflect a different meaning then what the words in that law actually say. Courts do that all the time, and the same flaw occurs when they reinterprate the words of the Constitution.
Now surely I am not out to lunch on that as we routinely observe near even splits handed down on a lot of cases and majority or near majority decisions which are then overturned by a higher court.
I believe that justice is better served by a stricter adhearnance to the actual words of the law and of the Constitution, rather then by some who would try to put themselves into the shoes of the Legislature or of the framers of the Constitution and make a judgement call on what they think might have been intended rather then what was actually written.
The idea was for one branch to check the others. If one of the branches usurps the power of one or both of the others it becomes the duty of the others to reel it in and restore balance.
Anyone who has paid attention can plainly see in the last fifty years that the Court has been continually encroaching in the domain of the other body by making law.
It was not something that they could do if they felt like it but a duty of oversight.That's why you have that part in the oath that says "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
There's is no way that those who are in the process of declaring freedom from the tyranny of unrepresentative government is going to turn around and give six unelected men with no direct accountability to the people the sole voice of authority in all matters of law without some very strong checks and balances.
That's why there where limits placed on matters they could rule own. However the limits mean nothing if the other branches with responsibility for oversight do not do their duty.
pardon. Six= read nine
This vote alone must be sending shivers down the spines of liberal judges.
Not to worry. Those that would do the limiting have to answer to the people every two and six years. It's those that are appointed for life and abusing their power that you need to fear.
As for a Constitutional crisis that, occurs when a branch exercises power it was never given.
Our Constitution has been in crisis and under attack by liberal judges and lawyers for years.
The Legislative Branch has, for mostly political reasons, set on it's hands too long and not performed it's duty of oversight where the courts are concerned.
The world will not come to an end because some judges get their hands slapped. This system of correction was written in the Constitution for just such an occasion.Our Constitution is a remarkable document.
It has flexibility yet is extremely resilient. A tribute to the brilliance, and I believe spiritual guidance, of the great Americans who wrote it.
Yup. And of course contempt for the law is what we see from the Left in all matters. (Lose an election, even with massive voter fraud? Bring in the lawyers and attempt to steal it using packed courts...sound familiar?) When things really disintegrate, as they may do, it all depends on who the Army is loyal to.
Voter fraud has paid too important of a part in some key elections and I'm really concerned about this one. I hoping this one won't be that close, if it is we could be in trouble.