We the People Act(HR 3893 IH)

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ^ | March 4, 2004 | Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland)

[Ed Current]

HR 3893 IH

 

2d Session

H. R. 3893

To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 4, 2004

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

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 `We the People Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States vests the judicial power of the United States in `one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'.

(2) Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States give Congress the power to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts.

(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

(4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)).

(5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.

(6) Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees each State a republican form of government.

(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.

(9) Even supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's decisions overturning the abortion laws of all 50 States are constitutionally flawed (e.g. Ely, `The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade' 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973)).

(10) Several members of the Supreme Court have admitted that the Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction is indefensible (e.g. Zelamn v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 688 (2002) (Souter, J., dissenting); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 861 (1995) (Thomas, J. concurring); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 399, (1993) (Scalia, J. concurring); and Committee for Public Ed. And Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 671 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

(11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--

(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.

SEC. 5. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES.

Any party or intervener in any matter before any Federal court, including the Supreme Court, may challenge the jurisdiction of the court under section 3 or 4 during any proceeding or appeal relating to that matter.

SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.

A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.

SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.

END

 

 

[Ed Current]

SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.

How right you are.

[tacticalogic]

Your questions have been answered. The answers require you to have a working knowledge of the Constitution, and you don't. You don't even have basic conceptual knowledge.

If that's your answer, then we're done. I'll put my working and conceptual knowlege of the Constitution up against yours of the processes of logic and honest debate any day.

[jonestown]

Exactly.
-- In fact I see the 'shifting balance' game being cynically played by the politicians largely in order to misdirect & confuse.

As we see from some of the posts on this thread, the ploy works.

[jonestown]

Ed Current

As explained in post #1, there isn't any balance of power. SCOTUS has assumed it all.

---

The 'balance of power' is being abused by all three federal branches, and, -- by all State & local governments.

SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.
38 jones

---

How right you are.
41 Ed Current

---

Then you agree, "SCOTUS has [not] assumed it all".
-- SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.

[bummerdude]

FYI. You should put in the summary of the article what point you're trying to make by posting this, to get the interest of people like me who don't want to read through pages and pages to see what this is about.

[Ed Current]

FYI. You should put in the summary of the article what point you're trying to make by posting this, to get the interest of people like me who don't want to read through pages and pages to see what this is about.

The article is a bill. Post #1 gives the conceptual background for the bill. Those who understand the Constitution need no background.

As you can plainly see, tacticalogic & jonestown remain clueless anyway.

However, everyone else seems to get it, one way or the other.

[tacticalogic]

The clues are in the Koolaid.

[jonestown]

Ed Current
As explained in post #1, there isn't any balance of power. SCOTUS has assumed it all.

---

The 'balance of power' is being abused by all three federal branches, and, -- by all State & local governments.
SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.
38 jones

---

How right you are.
41 Ed Current

---

Then you agree, "SCOTUS has [not] assumed it all".
-- SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.
44 jones

---

To: bummerdude;

As you can plainly see, tacticalogic & jonestown remain clueless anyway.
However, everyone else seems to get it, one way or the other.
46 Ed Current

---

Bummer, -- as you can plainly see, - Ed can't even explain his own misconceptions about the balance of power.
Which makes him the "clueless" one.

[cpforlife.org]

This legislation and it's related Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 are the most exciting and promising opportunities available to stopping abortion and judicial tyranny in general.

You can read a great intro for laypeople on the Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 at http://www.cpforlife.org/id139.htm#removal_of_federal_court_jurisdiction_

Pro-Life PING

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

[bummerdude]

The article is a bill. Post #1 gives the conceptual background for the bill. Those who understand the Constitution need no background.

I know its a bill. I'm not criticizing. I'm just saying that a summary would be nice of why you posted it (i.e. FOR or AGAINST it, and why). Just a suggestion to draw in more readers, who might glance over it and not wanna waste the time. For all they know, this might be the bill of the century, but it could just as easily be a bore that isn't worth wasting 1/2 hr to read.

[Ed Current]

Judicial Dictatorship Everyone talks about the Supreme Court, but no one ever does anything about it.

1. It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that African slaves were not citizens protected by the U.S. Constitution but were the property of their slave masters. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856). ^{Lincoln on Judicial Supremacy}
2. It was judges, not legislators, who by an act of "raw judicial power" struck down the abortion laws of the states and created a constitutional "right" to abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). ^{When Do Human Beings Begin? , Personhood Begins At Conception When Does a Human Become a Person? THE HUMAN LIFE REVIEW Where to Go from Here}
3. It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that a school district policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer before school football games violates the Constitution. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). ^{Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Library of Congress Exhibition), Primary Source Documents & No Liberty for License: The Forgotten Logic of the First Amendment}
4. It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that burning the American flag is "expressive conduct" protected by the First Amendment. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). ^{Death in the Ia Drang Valley , Iwo Jima , US Flag Etiquette , Philadelphia Online | Blackhawk Down The Star-Spangled Banner at American History Museum}
5. It was judges, not legislators, who ordered a state to provide same-sex couples with all the benefits and protections afforded to married couples. Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999). ^{Is Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation? , Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality}
6. It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that the First Amendment protects "virtual" child pornography. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389 (2002). ^{Amendment I (Speech and Press)}
7. It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that minor girls may obtain an abortion without parental consent. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976). ^{The Moral Question of Abortion , FT January 2003: Constitutional Persons}
8. It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that a state law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms is unconstitutional. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980^{). God in the Temples of Government - Photo Essay& Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion}
9. It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that sodomy is a constitutional right. Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003). ^{LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS - Scalia BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion ,Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts&Family Research Institute& CCCU : Resource Center | Article: An Evangelical Looks at ... & i IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _______ No. 02-102 ...}
10. It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that a university may use race as a factor in selecting students for admission. Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003). ^{Vindicating the Founders GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER Issues & Views: On the frontline of dissent since 1985}

[Wolfie]

Sounds good in theory. Of course, the minute a Federal Court can't strike down a law "We The People" don't agree with because of it, I imagine "We The People" will be regretting its passage. Bottom line: Americans just don't seem to be the type to live and let live.

[Ed Current]

1. As explained in post #1, there isn't any balance of power. SCOTUS has assumed it all.
2. SCOTUS only has as much power as the rest of the political establishment allows it to have.
   

READ ARTICLE III OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and you will understand that #1 & #2 are two ways of stating the same thing.

Article III explicitly vests in Congress the power not to have created lower Federal courts in the first place. The Framers' assumption was quite clear that if Congress chose not to create the lower Federal courts, the State courts could provide an adequate forum to interpret and enforce Federal law, including the Federal Constitution. While this Congress did create the lower Federal courts immediately, it is well established in the case law that that power to, from time to time, ordain and establish the lower Federal courts includes the power to abolish the lower Federal courts, and the greater power to abolish the lower Federal courts logically subsumes within it the power to leave the courts in existence, but limit their jurisdictions.

Article III, section 2 of the Constitution extends extremely limited original jurisdiction to the United States Supreme Court. In all other cases to which the federal judicial power is extended, the Court is given appellate jurisdiction, ''both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'' On its face, this provision provides seemingly unrestrained congressional authority to exclude categories of cases from the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. In Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868), the post-Civil War Supreme Court appeared to recognize the unlimited authority explicitly authorized in the text. See Martin H. Redish, Federal Jurisdiction: Tensions in the Allocation of Judicial Power 25-27 (2d ed. 1990). However, in a subsequent decision the same year, the Court construed McCardle narrowly, leaving open the possibility that the Exceptions Clause is not to be extended as far as its text suggests. Ex parte Yerger, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 85 (1868). See also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has to this day not resolved the outer reaches of the Exceptions Clause, and I fail to comprehend how a textually unlimited power to make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction can be construed to be limited in any way.

[Ed Current]

Sounds good in theory.

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.

[Ed Current]

It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that sodomy is a constitutional right. Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003). ^{LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS - Scalia BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion ,Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts&Family Research Institute& CCCU : Resource Center | Article: An Evangelical Looks at ... & i IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _______ No. 02-102 ...}

[OXENinFLA]

PING...

[Dataman]

Even if only one of those bills passes it will be a major victory, and if one passes, the rest will follow.

[Ed Current]

I'll put my working and conceptual knowlege of the Constitution up against yours of the processes of logic and honest debate any day.

What do you want to debate about H. R. 3893

[Dataman]

However, everyone else seems to get it, one way or the other.

It isn't that difficult. I understand the opposition's simplistic objection, however. It is similar to the one offered to re-allowing prayer in government schools: "If you allow Christians to pray, you'll have to allow satanists to pray too.

[Dataman]

It was judges, not legislators, who ruled that sodomy is a constitutional right. Lawrence v. Texas,

=We the judges

not

We the people.