[justshutupandtakeit]

Congress has the power under the "Exceptions Clause", Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 to remove this issue from the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

I am very reluctant to amend the Constitution for this issue but support the use of it to force the Party of Treason to be on record. It is an absurdity that such an amendment would even be necessary.

[andy58-in-nh]

Congress has the power under the "Exceptions Clause", Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 to remove this issue from the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

That's absolutely right. However, Congress has been reluctant in the extreme to exercise this power, preferring political compromise and legislative remedies to a raw display of force. For that reason, ther's little case law on the subject.

Perhaps this is as the Framers intended it. On the other hand, the judiciary used to exercise sufficient self-restraint as to avoid usurping legislative functions. In many cases, it no longer does. Members of what you term the "Party of Treason" are using the Federal judiciary to advance an agenda (including gay marriage) designed to break down traditional society and economic liberty in the service of a Utopian socialist ideology for which they intend to be the new Ruling Class.

 

[steve-b]

Er, no. A close reading of the clause shows that Congress can regulate both the original and appellate jurisiction of lower courts and can regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The upshot is that Congress can control which court exercises the judicial power in which cases, but cannot abridge the judicial power overall.

[nosofar]

Congress has the power under the "Exceptions Clause", Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 to remove this issue from the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

Ha! Congress doesn't want to touch controversial issues when they can just let the courts handle it.