Posted on 09/28/2015 1:35:55 PM PDT by Pfesser
Article III Clause 2 of the Constitution states: 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. Clearly, Congress has this power.So why haven't they used it? They have in years past.
According, to heritage.org:The seminal decision on jurisdiction-stripping statutes under the Appellate Jurisdiction Clause came shortly after the Civil War. Ex parte McCardle (1869) involved a newspaper editor in military custody, who had appealed a lower federal court's denial of habeas corpus relief to the United States Supreme Court, pursuant to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867. After the Supreme Court heard oral argument, Congress repealed the provisions of the statute that had authorized Supreme Court review. The Court concluded that, pursuant to Congress's power under the Appellate Jurisdiction Clause, it had no jurisdiction to decide the case.
So question the remains, why is this Congress so gutless or ignorant to use this power?
I’ve heard of this constitutional provision. But it’s rarely used. I wonder if it’s rarely used because both parties want to be able to allow for lawsuits over laws passed by Congress???
Interestingly, in the case which the article cites, one could argue that Congress repealing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear a case already pending would constitute an ex post facto law, which is prohibited by the Constitution. Congress could prohibit the court from reviewing future cases, but not current ones.
Constitutional Amendment?
13th, 14th Amendment to void Dred Scott comes to mind...
It depends on the regulations or exceptions Congress makes.
Not seeing where this is repealed by the 13th or 14th amendment.
Thirteenth Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
How so? Congress hasn’t even tried it in years.
The 13th and 14th were in direct response to Dred Scott, more specifically, the 14th and did in fact negate SCOTUS on Dred Scott.
A Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as 1 biological man and 1 biological woman would also void SCTUS’s homo ruling.
The Supreme Court reversed itself on the WW II Enemy Combatants/Detainees case. And I am sure they would on this as well. John Roberts would not hesitate. We’d just be opening the door to an even bigger judicial power grab.
Just because it hasn't been done for a long while, doesn't mean it can't be.
I was merely pointing out that it is a Constitutional remedy for a run amok liberal SCOTUS
Its a jobs program for lawyers.
Congress could make the Federal Judiciary disappear tomorrow if it wanted to.
So would packing the court with six new right wing judges and reversing the current bunch of homos.
Lot easier than an Amendment.
Nothing in the Constitution that says there has to be nine members of the SCOTUS.
That won’t happen because the GoPEE lacks a spine and a set of balls.
Lot easier than an Amendment.
Nothing in the Constitution that says there has to be nine members of the SCOTUS.
Wow, I was just making a point that there are alternative remedies.
I wasn't into inciting a whole different conversation on the make up or number of Judges the Constitution calls for.
I posted what would work.
Mine was simpler.
When you have the chance read about the Supreme Court during FDRs terms.
That jackass, the White Obama, tried to "pack" the Court simply by increasing their number and appointing his choices.
Several times.
Most social issue cases (Roe/Obergefell) apply to states, where the Court has original jurisdiction.
If Congress decides to totally bar government sanctioned sodomy or womb murder, then it can bar the Supreme Court too.
I'm familiar with it, but thought this thread was about something entirely different.
I’ve read it many times.
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.