(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
On the other hand, Congress does a great job of making sure American horses aren't fed to foreigners.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S HORSE SLAUGHTER BILL
"A bill worthy of support will be introduced soon in Congress by California's Senator Dianne Feinstein to prohibit the slaughter of American horses for human consumption abroad."
Barney Frank co-sponsored a similar bill in the House.
Congress has the ability to define the jurisdiction of every federal court - except (at least in some instances) the supreme court. That is what this law did - it assigned jurisdiction in this matter to a federal court for review.
Oh, and the constitution prohibits "bills of attainder" that prescribe punishment to an individual. It does not prohibit laws that benefit an individual (although there is a valid argument to be had concerning the tradeoff between specificity and unintended consequences of broader bills).
Brave bump. :-)
A bump to more wise words from Wolfstar today.
That statement is simply incorrect. "Private relief" bills have been common since the 1st Congress and usually for much more trivial "individual legal" matters than life or death. They are usually under the media radar, but they happen all the time. Just because you haven't heard of them does not make them extra Constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts Congress from doing this.
BTW. Even Scallia wouldn't have a problem with what Congress did. They are not overstepping their authority.
Congress did not act to give or deny Terri life. They did not involve themselves in this case in the sense you imply. Congress has not adjudicated this case. Congress has merely extended to the Federal Courts the jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. As someone stated above, this is not a bill of attainder. The power to establish the lower courts and, with limited exception, dictate their jurisdiction rests with Congress. If Congress wants to extend jurisdiction to the Federal Courts in this one case, it is fully within its right to do so.
The Bill of Rights (not in its entirety by the way) was extended, via the Fournteenth Amendment, to actions taken by the individual States. This Amendment was enacted after the Civil War to obviate the notion that "States Rights Rule the Day." In the instant case, we have a citizen of an individual state about to be deprived of life. She will now get to use the Federal Courts in satisfaction of her procedural and substantive due process rights. That is all Congress has done.
I do agree with you that Congress should have gone further and extended jurisdiction to all such cases, but surely you see that the current state of the judiciary makes Congress loathe to extend any more jurisdiction than it has to. While this case is important because of its individual facts, it is part of a larger and looming picture. There is a showdown coming between the Judicial Branch and the other two. What is really irking some is that Congress overruled a State Court. There is this notion, largely promoted by the Left, that Courts are the final word, that Courts sit atop the pyramid. That notion is nonsense. The judiciary is a co-equal branch of the government and needs to be made so again. This bill was directed towards a State Court. In the future, expect bills directed to the Federal Courts, for example, forbidding Judges from using foreign law as a basis of granting decisions.
Nothing in the Constitution forbids this. In fact Congress passes laws all the time that pertain to one individual or one company
There are plenty of bills passed that apply to only one individual. Get informed before posting vanities.
If Mumia Abu Jamal gets Federal review then Terri can to.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to determine the jurisdiction of the Courts, period. You can debate whether or not this move is practical, but it is definitely not unconstitutional.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh Great!
My friend owes me a little money. He couldn't pay and so I have decided to take on his two underage childen (whom he is the legal guardian of) as indentured servants.
As this is all an individual legal matter between me and my friend I would appreciate it if Congress would kindly butt out and mind their own business. TYVM
And I suppose the next midnight vote will be a raise for themselves.