Conservative Gains Possible in Election 2004

The Senate may become more conservative as a result of retirements and seat changes.

Five Democrats and two Republicans are calling it quits in the Senate, while in the House more Republicans than Democrats are retiring.

Jayd Henricks, a government liaison for the Family Research Council, predicted that the Senate may gain a few more conservatives.

"If Republicans were able to do that, there'd be a greater opportunity for pro-life legislation to be not simply considered, but actually passed through the Senate," he explained.

Michael Schwartz, vice president of government relations at Concerned Women for America (CWA), agreed — and said many of those gains will be in the South. Still, Democrats will continue to have clout.

"(Anticipated changes) will not be sufficient to break filibusters, and I think we can continue to see the Democrats in the 109th Congress continue to filibuster judicial nominees and to block legislation they oppose," Schwartz said.

Another key piece of pro-family legislation, the Federal Marriage Amendment, will be a major focus on political attention this year.

Jan LaRue, chief counsel for CWA, predicted that a common question for just about everyone running for Congress in 2004 will be, "Where do you stand on the defense of marriage and on same-sex civil unions, and specifically will you support a pledge to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman?"

Henricks added that in order for strong, pro-family politicians to be elected in the 2004, a concerted effort from people who are passionate about the issues of life and marriage is needed.

TAKE ACTION
Want to vote in the 2004 election but figure you don't have the time to stand in line to register? You don't have to, thanks to the CitizenLink Action Center. Just click here and you can complete your voter registration, for every state in the union, in just a few minutes.

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}

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. ^{The Senate Is Supposed to Advise And Consent, Not Obstruct and Delay"}^&^{'Nuclear option' out =The Hill.com=}^&^{The Salt Lake Tribune -- GOP plans to use 'nuclear option' to end ...}^&^{A broken tradition - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED}^&^{Testimony of Mr. Steven Calabresi Professor of Law Northwestern University Law School}^&^{Testimony of Dr. John Eastman Professor of Law Chapman University School of Law}^&^{Testimony of Mr. Douglas Kmiec Dean of the Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America}

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Testimony of U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing "Judicial Nominations, Filibusters and the Constitution: When A Majority Is Denied Its Right to Consent" May 6, 2003

The United States Senate is the only place on the planet where 59 votes out of 100 cannot pass anything because 41 votes out of 100 can defeat it.
Try explaining that at your local Rotary Club or someone in the Wal-Mart parking lot or, for that matter, to the college freshman in Poly Sci 101. You can't because this silly senate math stands democracy on its head.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, feared some future political leaders would pervert the legislative process in just this way. And he warned in Federalist Paper Number 58 that when it happened, "The Fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule. The power would be transformed to the minority." So what's happening today, I'm sure, has the man who wrote the Constitution spinning in his grave.
And Alexander Hamilton as well, because he agreed with Madison on this. He pointed out in his Federalist Paper #68 that the vice president was given a tie-breaking vote "to securing at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of that body." A "definite resolution, how well put. That's what we need around here: "a definite resolution."
For many years, I taught political science and history at four different colleges and universities, I don't think I ever taught a class without telling the old story about the origin of the Senate.
Thomas Jefferson was in France when the Constitutional Convention was being held and later, the story goes, he asked his friend George Washington, who presided over the convention, about the purpose of this upper chamber, the Senate.
Washington, according to the anecdote, then asked Jefferson "why do you pour coffee into your saucer?" "To cool it," Jefferson replied. And Washington responded, "Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."
But there is nothing said in the Constitution at all about extended debate. Washington, I believe, thought the smaller size, longer and staggered terms, as well as chosen by state legislation, would provide more wisdom, hopefully.
Some constitutional lawyers have argued that any kind of super majority vote is unconstitutional, other than for those five areas specified in the Constitution itself: treaty ratification, impeachment, override of a presidential vote, constitutional amendments and expelling a member of Congress. Nowhere does it say it now should be a super majority on judicial nominations. But that is what we have going on today.

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg	Freepers/Avg	Monthlies
44	Idaho	60.00	2	30.00	92	0.65	45.00	2

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.