Posted on 12/22/2004 2:45:35 PM PST by 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
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,
This Act may be cited as `We the People Act'.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
HR 3893 would give these same out of control politicians the ability to restrict the jurisdiction of fed courts to hear cases on our RKBA'S.
All sodomy laws in the US are now unconstitutional and unenforceable when applied to non-commercial consenting adults in private.
Suppose that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opined against the Texas Law. The damage would have been confined to Texas, if SCOTUS were prohibited from reviewing the case (H. R. 3893). The remainder of the country is not affected and Texas can repair their highest court.
As it was, the Texas lower court was defeated by SCOTUS and so was the rest of the country.
80 Ed Current
Thanks. And to draw the analogy further regarding gun control (best defined as "keeping both hands on your gun helps you hit what you're aiming at"), it seems taht in both cases what's needed more than new law is effective use of existing law.
If a state agency makes public personal information about me that results in identity theft or other damages, what recourse would I have if the federal courts have no authority to rule on a privacy rights issue?
What will you do when SCOTUS agrees with California Court of Criminal Appeals?
If a state agency makes public personal information about me that results in identity theft or other damages, what recourse would I have if the federal courts have no authority to rule on a privacy rights issue?
Where is that stated in the bill!
(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
#1 Occurred by a 1 vote margin. Do you realize how close that was?
#2 Occurred because (H. R. 3893) wasn't law.
The purpose of (H. R. 3893) is to confine errors to the States in which they occur and let the citizens of those states rectify the problem in accordance with their respective legislative, and judicial remedies.
The error of Dale vs. BSA would be confined to N.J.
Lawrence v. Texas would have never made it to SCOTUS and nothing would have changed in those states with sodomy laws.
Why, yes. Yes, I do. A one vote margin is, remarkably, a margin of one vote. Thank you for pointing that out. I might have missed it otherwise.
The error of Dale vs. BSA would be confined to N.J.
Actually, probably not. There were suits pending in numerous other states that the June 2000 Dale vs. BSA decision short-circuited. I well imagine that at least some of them (notably California) would have come down against the BSA, and the precendent in each state would have hurt many other organizations that don't have the BSA's resources to fight lawsuits. Here in Illinois, a gay man tried to force the BSA to hire him as a policy-making and -enforcing executive. He succeeded in defeating the Chicago Area Council, BSA, at the local and circuit court level (based on a Chicago city anti-discrimination ordinance). He was defeated at the appellate level, but the judge there cited not Illinois law but Dale vs. BSA as the deciding factor. Otherwise the BSA may well have been forced to hire gays and lesbians to enforce the BSA's requirement that avowed homosexuals not be allowed to serve as Scoutmasters, etc.
What do you want to debate about H. R. 3893
If a state agency makes, public personal information about me that results in identity theft or other damages what recourse would I have if the federal courts have no authority to rule on a privacy rights issue?
87 posted on 12/23/2004 12:20:19 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
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
90 posted on 12/23/2004 12:45:18 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
Sodomy and abortion are acts deemed to infringe on individual privacy by federal courts and some state courts, and have nothing to do with any state agency making public personal information about me that results in identity theft or other damages.
THE BILL IS AUTHORED BY RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you have any friend against federal intrusion of your privacy in Congress, it is RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So the "right to privacy" is only about sodomy and abortion, and there are no other privacy issues that might need to be decided by a federal court?
Rest assured Ed, I would fight, -- just as I fight bills like HR 3893.
Which leads to the question, - seeing you
LOL - Get off this balance of power gig. SCOTUS only has the power of OPINION and needs the executive to enforce it. This Bill prevents the President from rubber stamping everything SCOTUS says, like in the children's game SIMON SEZ.
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve." The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
California is ____________________! Why did the good citizens of CA let them do it? Repeal the law and throw the idiots that passed it into the sea, or move out of the marxist state of affairs there.
The Revolutionary Second Amendment written by Brent J. McIntosh, Law Clerk, Hon. Dennis Jacobs, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:
The revolutionary understanding of the Second Amendment is founded on the idea that the right to bear arms exists to protect the American populace from governmental tyranny. The revolutionary right to bear arms is premised on the normative assertion that while representative government will generally ensure non-tyrannical governance, it is still imperative that the populace retain the means with which to effectuate the most drastic of representative actions: the overthrow of an antidemocratic regime. If other vehicles for popular control of the government (particularly the vote) fail, the right to alter or abolish the government ensures that the citizenry possesses the ultimate trump card in the interaction between the governing and the governed.
R.J. Rummel made the following comment in a speech given to the ABA National Security Conference on "The Rule of Law in United States Foreign Policy and the New World Order. Washington, D.C., October 10-11, 1991:
Today, we can extend the idea of peace through democracy to cover freedom from government genocide and mass murder. But to do so requires overcoming incredible mass ignorance even about the megamurders for which authoritarian and totalitarian governments have been responsible. Of course, everyone knows about the Nazi genocide.
Elsewhere on his website,Freedom Virtually Ends Genocide And Mass Murder he states:
By shooting, drowning, burying alive, stabbing, torture, beating, suffocation, starvation, exposure, poison, crushing, and other countless ways that lives can be wiped out, governments have killed unarmed and helpless people. Intentionally. With forethought. This is murder. It is democide.
...democide is a government's murder of people for whatever reason; genocide is the murder of people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or language.
Part of this reluctance to call a government or its ruler a murderer comes from the fact that to do so is a new and strange thought. Democide is a black hole in our textbooks, college teaching, and social science research. Few people know the extent to which governments murder people.
Note that at the workers' level, this was not an act of massacre by the uneducated, undisciplined masses, ordinary folk easily misled and aroused. As with the Holocaust, when Nazi killing squads were often led and composed of Ph.Ds and other professionals, the claims of the powerful and authoritative easily swayed the well educated to murder. In the Great Genocide, Hutu lawyers, teachers, professors, medical doctors, journalists, and other professionals, made their contribution to the methodical annihilation of the Tutsi or defiant Hutu.
What connects all these cases of democide is this: as a government's power is more unrestrained, as its power reaches into all the corners of culture and society, the more likely it is to kill its own citizens. As a governing elite has the power to do whatever it wants, whether to satisfy its most personal wishes, or to pursue what it believes is right and true, it may do so whatever the cost in lives. Here, power is the necessary condition for mass murder. Once an elite has full authority, other causes and conditions can operate to bring about the immediate genocide, terrorism, massacres, or whatever killing the members of an elite feel is warranted.
So the "right to privacy" is only about sodomy and abortion, and there are no other privacy issues that might need to be decided by a federal court?
Ron Paul's Weekly Column would not hear of it. He is as libertarian as the U.S. Congress can get at this point in time.
So what's all the fuss about then? First we hear they've assumed all the power, then we hear they don't have any real power.
Ranks Ron Paul A+ Pro-Gun Leader: introduces pro-gun legislation.
Is there a particular column where he addresses that issue, or are they all the same?
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.