[Ed Current]

Still not convinced?

• Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction To Protect Marriage For The States

• Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction To Protect Marriage For The States (Charles E. Rice)

• Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction To Protect Marriage For The States (PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY)

• http://lawsforlife.blogspot.com/

• Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 (H.R. 1546) provides that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution. The district courts of the United States, as well as the United States Court of Federal Claims, should not have the authority to hear these types of cases.

Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED 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.

The US Constitution v. rebellious federal judges and cowardly republicans ... As you can see, jurisdiction stripping is far more common and easier to accomplish than amendment or impeachment; and far more effective than hoping for a favorable decree from trained monkey, or his more liberal colleague - a federal judge.

The commentary for Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 is found in Federalist No. 81

The Federalist #48: "It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."

The proposal is consistent with the goals of Free Republic:

is dedicated to reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and is advocating a complete restoration of our constitutional republic. Listed below are some of the issues we feel strongly about.

Basically, we believe that the Founders designed our system of government in the form of a constitutionally limited republic, with maximum freedom intended for the people and minimum government control or interference into our personal lives and business affairs.

The united states of America was intended to be a federation of sovereign states, each with its own constitution and state government. Governments at all levels -- federal, state and local -- were to be controlled by the people. Our Constitution explicitly restricts the power of our federal government; and our Bill of Rights guarantees that NO government may infringe upon our God given unalienable rights. This is to ensure that the real power remains close to home, with the states, the local governments and always in the hands of the people.

We the People have granted our federal government limited powers to oversee certain things, such as national defense, interstate commerce, the postal service, the coining of money, and the operation of a court system. Most other powers now in the hands of the federal government were illegally usurped from the states and from the people.

Somehow, over the years, our guiding principles of law, as set forth in the Constitution, have been eroded to the point that the federal government now has total control -- leaving the states impotent and the people as captive servants to the federal government. This must be reversed if we are to survive as a free Republic and a free people.

We at Free Republic are determined to return the Constitution to its rightful place as the Supreme Law of the land as the Founders intended.

It is not necessary for everyone to hold the same views to be members of Free Republic, however, many of us do share many of the following as common beliefs and goals:

The preservation and complete restoration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights with special emphasis on the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth amendments and, of course, our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness -- free of government intervention.

Keep these 4 items foremost in your mind:

1. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.
2. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51 But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates
3. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
4. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The federal courts, using an injudicious doctrine known as the 'Incorporation of the 14^th Amendment' (Gitlow v. New York (1925) [19] ) , have hyperinflated their jurisdiction beyond the confines of the U.S. Constitution to grotesque proportions. Rather than admit they have no jurisdiction, as Marshall did in Amendment V: Barron v. Baltimore and declare what the Constitution states with regard to a particular case over which they have jurisdicion - federal judges fabricate their own private interpretation from the hubris opined in novel dicta and deviant precedent, from which even greater deviation is justified in subsequent decisions.

For the history and thorough refutation of the Incorporation Doctrine, see the following: The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama, 49 Ala. L. Rev.434-754 (1998)., Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County (1983), Rehnquist's Dissent in Wallace v Jaffree (1985) and Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Second Edition, Raoul Berger, Forrest McDonald , Liberty Fund, Inc.; 2nd edition (June 1997) The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights; The Incorporation Theory, Charles Fairman, Stanley Morrison, Leonard Williams Levy, Da Capo Press , January 1970

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. ^{A Republic, If You Can Keep It}

Congress has the CONSTITUTIONAL power! They lack the WILL power, because Will O. DePeoples knows far more about their favoirte sports star, or entertainer than what's in the Constitution.

• Only 41 percent can name the three branches of government, but 59 percent can name the Three Stooges. ^{National Constitution Center: New Survey Shows Wide Gap Between ...}

[Ed Current]

Additional reading for the severely challenged:

1. Daniel Meltzer, The History and Structure of Article III, 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1569 (1990).
2. Martin Redish, Text, Structure, and Common Sense in the Interpretation of Article III, 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1633 (1990); Redish, Constitutional Limitations on Congressional Power to Control Jurisdiction: A Reaction to Professor Sager, 77 Nw. U. L. Rev. 143 (1982).II.
3. Gerald Gunther, Congressional Power to Curtail Federal Court Jurisdiction: An Opinionated Guide to the Ongoing Debate, 36 Stan. L. Rev. 895 (1984).
4. James McClellan, Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction, 27 Vill. L. Rev. XX (1982); McClellan, Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government 511- 516 (3d ed. 2000).
5. Charles E. Rice, Congress and the Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction, 27 Vill. L. Rev. 959 (1982); Rice, Withdrawing Jurisdiction from the Federal Courts, 7 Harv. J. L. & PP. 13 (1984).
6. Ralph A. Rossum, Congress, the Constitution, and the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The Letter and Spirit of the Exceptions Clause, 24 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 385 (1983).
7. Julian Valasco, Congressional Control Over Federal Court Jurisdiction: A Defense of the Traditional View, 46 Cath. L. Rev. 677 (1997).
8. William Van Alstyne, A Critical Guide to Ex Parte McCardle, 15 Ariz. L. Rev. 229 (1973).

[NRA2BFree]

WoW, You really did your homework. Great post. It's kinda late, but welcome to Free Republic. :)

[little jeremiah]

ping to self for later pingout.

[Ed Current]

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

• H.R. 3313 passed 233 - 194 7/22/2004 3:50pm: (Roll no. 410).

[Gritty]

GET THE US OUT OF THE UN AND THE UN OUT OF THE US!

... uh, wait a minute. Wrong subject.

GET THE SUPREME COURT OUT OF THE LEGISLATING BUSINESS AND THE LEGISLATING BUSINESS OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT!

There. That's better.

And more Constitutional.

[CHARLITE]

See WORSHIPPING AT THE TEMPLE OF LAW http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1295005/posts>/a>

[tuesday afternoon]

Bump

[epow]

This "solution" to the problem of an activist USSC might work in the case of Roe v Wade, but it would fail in the case of homosexual marriage for one reason, the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. Congress may be able to muster enough votes to take the matter out of the USSC's jurisdiction and give it to the individual states. But then even if one state fails to enact a ban on same sex marriage the USSC can, and no doubt will, cite the FF&C clause to force every other state to honor same sex marriages performed in that one state.

The only reason that hasn't already happened now that the MASC has forced same sex marriage in that state is that no such case has even begun to work it's way through the courts. But eventually one will unless the Constitution is amended. When that happens, and it will, each and every state will have legally married homosexuals residing throughout the state and enjoying the same benefits as traditional married couples, even though their state constitutions may still define legal marriage as only consisting of one man and one woman.

The only sure way to keep homosexual marriage from spreading throughout the nation is for the people to force Congress to pass a defense of marriage amendment. If that happens the necessary 38 state legislatures will fall all over themselves in their rush to ratify it.

But I do agree with the writer on one critical point, it will be virtually impossible to persuade or coerce the necessary 67 Senators needed for a DOM amendment. IIRC we couldn't even get a bare 51 vote majority for it this year, nevermind the 67 vote supermajority that's required. Frankly, barring a radical change in the Senate makeup at some point I don't see any way for a state to deny to a same sex couple legally married in another state the same status and privileges enjoyed by conventional married couples. By that I mean a Senate makeup that would result in 67 votes for either a DOM amendment or an amendment repealing the FF&C clause. Someone please show me where I'm wrong, PLEASE.

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life & Family PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[edsheppa]

The Congress can only regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. At least those are the plain words of the Constitution. It says nothing about regulating the original jurisdiction of other, inferior courts.

[Notwithstanding]

Perhaps I am wrong, but I would guess many new law students draw this same conclusion during their 1L constitutional law class.

I did, and thne promptly dropped the idea presuming it out of the realm of possibility, despite the simplicity of it all.

What is sad is that the SCOTUS would likely try to "interpret" this portion of the COnstitution out of existence (some penumbra written in the founders invisible ink that only liberal justices can see, dontchaknow).

[jude24]

Article III of our Constitution provides that Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress has the power to establish or abolish all federal courts except the Supreme Court, and the power to abolish includes the power to limit jurisdiction. Congress can also limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to "cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party." The Supreme Court has jurisdiction in all other cases only if Congress grants it by statute.

This is baloney, pure and simple. It might fool those who don't know squat about Constitutional law, but just reading the Constitution immediately rebuts this position.

Article III, Section 2

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Law doesn't get more black-letter than that -- the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over any federal question arising from federal law or the Constitution. Nothing Congress could say, short of a Constitutional Amendment, can take that jurisdiction away.