Posted on 02/13/2004 6:29:36 PM PST by Federalist 78
|
108TH CONGRESS 2ND SESSION |
S. 2082 |
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Shelby (for himself, Mr. Miller, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Graham of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on ______________
____________________________
A BILL To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE This Act may be cited as the "Constitution Restora- tion Act of 2004". TITLE I---JURISDICTION
SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
"§1260. Matters not reviewable
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Fed- eral, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), by reason of that ele- ment's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sov-ereign source of law, liberty, or government.".
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
"1260. Matters not reviewable.". (b) Applicability.-Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of the enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of the enact- ment of this Act.
SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION. (a) In General.-(1) Chapter 85 of title 28, United State Code, is amended by adding at the end of the fol- lowing new section: "1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks juris- diction to review
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the dis- trict court shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title". (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
"1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.". (b) Applicability.---Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of the enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of the enact- ment of this Act. TITLE II---INTERPRETATION
SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law. TITLE III---ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES
Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State Court.
SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.
To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by rea- son of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of-
(1) an offense for which the judge may be re- moved upon impeachment and conviction; and
(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.
Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
HR 1546 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1546
To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the `Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003'.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`(a) IN GENERAL- The district courts of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any abortion-related case.
`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `abortion-related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to abortion that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of contents for chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1370. Removal of jurisdiction over abortion-related cases.'.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`(a) IN GENERAL- The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any abortion-related case.
`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `abortion-related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to abortion that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of contents for chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1510. Removal of jurisdiction over abortion-related cases.'.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to cases filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Thomas Jefferson is generally recognized by most historians as the principle author of the Declaration of Independence. Our Founding Fathers created a federal system of three branches, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
On Aug. 18, 1821, Jefferson wrote to Charles Hammond and expressed his fear that, of the three branches of government which were created, the one he feared the most was the federal judiciary in these words:
"The federal judiciary is ?working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)."
Decisions of the federal judiciary over the last half century have resulted in the theft of our Judeo-Christian heritage, a brief sampling is as follows:
• Enacting "a wall of separation between church and state"
• Banning nondenominational prayer from public schools
• Removing the Ten Commandments from public school walls
• Removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance
Congress should use Article III, Section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution to recover what has been stolen. Under the heading "Jurisdiction of Supreme and Appellate Courts," the clause says:
"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.
One of the outstanding Constitutional scholars in the Senate is Robert Byrd, West Virginia Democrat. In 1979, in order to once again allow voluntary prayer in public schools, he introduced a law to except this subject from the federal court system under Article III, 2.2. Unfortunately, it was not enacted into law.
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.
It never ceases to amaze me that people think the Ten Commandments and manger scenes to be "nondenominational".
The district courts of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any abortion-related case.
Uh... enacting this statute would have the effect of ensuring that Roe v. Wade could never be overturned, because no subsequent case could ever make its way up through the courts (and permit the USSC to issue a ruling contrary to Roe).
Uh...
Timothy D. Terrell, Pro-Life Principles II: The Right-To-Life Amendment. July 30, 2002
There is no law against murder in the Constitution-that is not the purpose of that document, or even of the federal government. The Constitution of the United States leaves criminal law to the states, and was never intended to make all crimes into federal issues. Any prohibition against abortion ought to be a state concern, just as prohibitions against any form of murder are state concerns. Pro-lifers who want to use a federal instead of a state route to ending abortion are undermining the intent of the original Constitution. http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0207/020730terrell.shtml
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003
I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.
For the pro-life cause to truly succeed without undermining the very freedoms that protect life, it must return to principle and uphold our Founder's vision of federalism as an essential component of the American system. Undermining federalism ultimately can only undermine the very mechanism that protects the right to life. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403b.htm
We've got 27 amendments, the most recent as of 1992. Amending the Constitution is a long-term process, requiring two-thirds supermajorities in both the House and the Senate, plus ratification by three-fourths of the states. A number of Right to Life constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress, but to date, no definite action has been taken. Any amendment should focus on the federal courts where the problem is and return the issue to the several states where it belongs!
Republican presidents appointed seven members of the current Supreme Court. Supreme Court judge, Stevens, born April 20, 1920, is 4 years older than Rehnquist. The remaining seven are much younger. Replacements may wear the conservative label, but will they rule according to the U.S. Constitution, or according to judicial precedent? Will they follow the "activist" opinions, or the "restraint" of the Constitution?
Constitutions and Bills of Right are but vain and futile barricades against tyranny unless, as our Declaration of Independence says-they are firmly founded in and upon the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted....
The National Lawyers Association takes the position that there is a legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution based, in part, on the following:
The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration.
A. The United States Code Annotated treats the Declaration as a part of the organic law of the government of the United States of America.
1. The Preface to the United States Code - Annotated states that "this code is the official restatement in convenient form of the general and permanent laws of the United States in force December 7, 1925...." The Preface also states that there is also contained therein a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution with Amendments.
The Preamble introduces and explains the purpose of The U.S. Constitution, and links it to The Declaration of Independence:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice...and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...."
In 2001-2002, Congress used its authority on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
In post 2, we have: “Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003” (Introduced in House), which would bring about “REMOVAL OF ABORTION-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.”
THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS TO ISSUES SUCH AS ABORTION, SODOMY....ALL IT TAKES IS A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF BOTH HOUSES!
I hope that what this means is that in fact, We The People who believe that we ALL are endowed by our “Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”; Who are Pro-Life and Pro-America DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN ROE V WADE, OR WAIT FOR A LIFE AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION to end the AMERICAN HOLOCAUST
Lets engage Federalist 78 and ask for more specifics. Also I'd appreciate it if it could be distilled down so we could more easily see how this directly would work to help the unborn.
It is true that if district courts could not hear abortion-related cases, then if a state legislature passed a law outlawing abortion, nobody could obtain an injunction from a local federal district court barring enforcement of the law. But if Roe remained, it would be a powerful political bar to state legislatures enacting abortion-ban bills.
If West has decided to include the Declaration of Independence in the USCA, as well as a statement that they're considered important, that's nice and all, but that's not the same thing as the federal government declaring it the law of the land.
A library probably has a copy of the USCA. The Code which the federal government has made available online is probably the official USC - i.e., no commentary added.
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.