Posted on 07/14/2004 1:37:11 PM PDT by weegee
To: National Desk
Contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn, 202-225-2492, both of the House Committee on the Judiciary
WASHINGTON, July 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The House Judiciary Committee today approved by a 21-to-13 margin legislation that would ensure States continue to decide state marriage policy. H.R. 3313, introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) and amended today by the Committee, removes the federal courts' jurisdiction to hear cases involving the provision in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that allows States to decide whether to legally recognize out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses.
Article III, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution provides that the lower federal courts are entirely creatures of Congress, as is the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, excluding its very limited original jurisdiction.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.), stated, "This legislation protects the people's right to decide state marriage policy under DOMA, which Congress passed overwhelmingly and President Clinton signed into law. The Constitution allows the exercise of 'judicial power,' but it does not grant the federal courts unchecked power to define the limits of its own power. Integral to the American constitutional system is each branch of government's responsibility to use its powers to prevent overreaching by the other branches. Far from violating the 'separation of powers,' as some have alleged, this legislation that leaves state courts with jurisdiction to decide certain classes of cases would be an exercise of one of the very 'checks and balances' provided for in the Constitution."
"Limiting federal court jurisdiction is neither a partisan issue nor a rare occurrence. For example, Senate Minority Leader Daschle inserted language in legislation enacted during the last Congress that denied all federal courts jurisdiction over the procedures governing timber projects in order to expedite forest clearing. If limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts is good enough to protect trees, shouldn't it be good enough to protect a state's marriage policy?" Chairman Sensenbrenner added.
...issue file.
If they can pass this, the liberal judiciary will throw it out in a flash.
All the votes against from the Rats. I would love to see Tommy Daschund filibuster a state's rights measure on the Senate floor. I think its a sensible first step before we go to the drastic expedient of amending the Constitution.
Let 'em. It will help convince conservatives a federalist solution doesn't work. What its about is building the case for protecting marriage.
What do you mean? Diane Feinstein said that the states were quite capable of handling gay marriage. Why would she not support legislation that helps to insure that is the case? :-)
Don't we need a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution? I do not want Democrats involved in in a Convention at all.
States rights are important. Maybe it'll keep the gays busy if they have to go state-state. Maybe it will shift some Dem states further to the center, if not the right.
Exactly. If the Democrats vote down this legislation, it exposes them as a bunch of hypocrites. And as radicals on the issue of gay marriage. Either way, we win.
This is an intermediate step designed to make sure the federal judiciary leaves state laws on marriage alone. A sensible solution no one I think, should object to. At the same time it helps to build a case for amending the Constitution in the event the federal courts do throw it out.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts is stuck with a lot of weddings that no one can stomach, all because some judges had their gay associates look up some law.
It is amazing that some common sense reared its ugly head in the House. The Congress has complete control over the lower courts and their jurisdiction.
Not bad. Unfortunately it elevates the power of state courts in that the feds cannot rule against, say, the Mass. Supremes who overstepped their role. It locks in that ruling and ends the lawsuit challenging them, leaving those idiots all powerful but for the wimpy name change that MIGHT happen a few years from now.. But at least it leaves it to the individual states. Besides, there is no chance in the world that our Supreme Court will rule justly. I can just move to the state with the best Amendment. So far Nebraska is best. That's the good news. It would stop the overturning of the Nebraska Amendment.
But, would this not mean the Mass SC ruling could be overturned by state lawmakers, and thereby be immuned to appeal to or intervention by federal courts?
It could not be overturned by state lawmakers alone. It could only be overturned lawmakers and citizens together amending their constitution by spelling out the definition of a word that has had a clear meaning since the beginning of language development. But Mass. lawmakers have already wimped out and are offering the people a vote on an amendment that would ban marriage but constitutionalize civil unions that equal marriage. It's a stupid distinction. Word play. Talk about a waste of time.
Or they could remove their judges via an Article of Address. Their state constitution gives them that opportunity.
Why aren't they doing that?
But that can change.
Gay Marriage Roll Call Vote
The 50-48 roll call by which the Senate blocked a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Supporters of the amendment fell 12 votes short of the 60 they needed to advance the bill.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to advance the measure and a "no" vote was a vote to stop it.
Voting "yes" were 3 Democrats and 45 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 43 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Independent.
X denotes those not voting.
Democrats Yes
Byrd, W.Va.; Miller, Ga.; Nelson, Neb.
Democrats No
Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Breaux, La.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Daschle, S.D.; Dayton, Minn.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Graham, Fla.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.
Democrats Not Voting
Edwards, N.C.; Kerry, Mass.
Republicans Yes
Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Chambliss, Ga.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Fitzgerald, Ill.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Nickles, Okla.; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.
Republicans No
Campbell, Colo.; Chafee, R.I.; Collins, Maine; McCain, Ariz.; Snowe, Maine; Sununu, N.H.
Others No
Jeffords, Vt.
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.