Makes one wonder why this sort of action wasn't taken long, long ago...
Posted on 07/22/2004 8:31:15 AM PDT by kattracks
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal judges should keep their hands off marriage, House Republicans said Thursday, pressing for passage of legislation to give states final say over recognizing same-sex unions sanctioned elsewhere.Federal judges, unelected and given lifetime appointments, "must not be allowed to rewrite marriage policy for the states," Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., said at the start of a debate tinged by election-year politics.
Republican leaders predicted easy passage for the Marriage Protection Act, a week after the Senate dealt gay marriage opponents a setback by failing to advance a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions.
The legislation would strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Bush administration supports the measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Can we also strip federal judges of their power to write laws while we're at it?
Then state legislatures can control their state and local judges the same way.
That's when I wake up.
Shalom.
Shalom.
I'm not sure this is good. It could work against us if also -- say a State passes a pro-gay marriage bill and the court system would likely overturn it. Then it's the law of the State.
This needs some thought.
Makes one wonder why this sort of action wasn't taken long, long ago...
This does not prevent a state court from overturning a state law - it just keeps the feds out of a state issue, and also prevents the the federal courts (think the 9th Circus) from making all states recognize the marriages performed in MA. It is a proper use of the power granted to Congress in the Constitution, IMHO.
In addition to being more realistic in dealing with this particular issue "court stripping" also has the equally important effect of reining in judges overall. From what I have read the Constitution grants Congress broad power to limit the authority of the courts. The more this power is exercised, the more the judges will get the message (and in many, many other issues besides this one).
As I gathered it, the entire essence of the American Experiment was that the Founding Fathers were the first to acknowledge and make allowances for, the falliability of human beings in the handling of power. The day we decide we need all-powerfull philosopher kings (whether in black robes or white coats) to protect us from ourselves is the day the American Experiment ends in failure. 1stFreedom seems to distrust his fellow citizens. I venture to say that liberal elitists do likewise.
I hope they word it carefully. Even then, the judges may simply twist everything and end with the same result. They could mandate civil unions, which would be the same thing. And just what kind of power does this leave the state courts with? Are they now the final interpreters of the U.S. Constitution for their state? Will this protect Nebraska as well as provide cover for Massachusetts?
I second that. See the explanation in Chronicles: The Fourth Choice: Ending the Reign of Activist Judges
True. But what do we do about the state courts?
Julie, check out post #7!
Is the senate required to approve this?
Or can the House simply pass the law and it becomes the law of the land?
constitutionish ping.
Any one have the 'early line' on the chances of this passing? Any whip or floor counts? Has Vegas put any odds on it?
This is a bill, so it would have to pass the House and the Senate (by simple majorities only, not 2/3), and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.
Marriage has never been a Federal Constitutional issue, but has always been left to the states. This is intended to make sure it stays that way, and that the judges can't overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. So the state courts will be the final arbiter of their own marriage laws, which is as it should be.
Isn't there one little problem here? To wit, that the next Democrat-controlled Congress that comes along could simply overturn the law? Correct me if I'm wrong.
The definition of marriage has long been a federal issue. Utah was required to ban polygamy before they joined the union. The first Republican national party platform in 1856 sought to end slavery and polygamy.
Yes and no. The people can change their state constitutions and their state representatives. They can even chage their state judges. All states elect their judges in one way or another, either through the normal election process, or through judges being appointed by the governor, then periodically standing for "retention" elections, as is done here in California. Once the judges are on the bench, they are the arbiters of the state constitution, however. IF the people don't like the way they rule, they can vote them out of office, which is more than we can do with federal judges.
The definition of marriage has long been a federal issue. Utah was required to ban polygamy before they joined the union. The first Republican national party platform in 1856 sought to end slavery and polygamy.
Once again, yes and no. True, the federal government has stepped into the marriage debate a few times, but what I said is that it is not a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal government. It is an issue that the Constitution and the Founders left to the several states. Just because the FedGov tries to take state power for itself does not mean the Constitution allows it.
They can, if they also have a Dem president who will not veto the law repealing this law.
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.