Posted on 08/22/2003 2:58:32 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Article III Section I of the US Constitution states: "The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish..."
Apparently the Republicans in Congress believe that if Congress creates "inferior federal courts" then it can restrict their jurisdiction.
Congressional testimony - Congress, the Court, and the Constitution :
Instead of such measures that add to their miseries, the Congress should take steps to shield state and local governments from the depredations of the Court. Where the danger comes from judicial interpretation of federal statutes, Congress can (and sometimes does) easily forestall the danger by including language about non-preemption of state laws, or declaratory clauses on the rules by which a statute is to be construed. But the greatest blows to federalism in this century have come from the Supreme Court working quite on its own with no other weapon than what it purports to be the Constitution. To begin to reverse that damage, more imaginative approaches are needed. One scholar, for instance, has recently suggested that the enforcement power given to Congress in section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment can be turned to good use here, to limit rather than expand the reach of judicial power over the states.(see footnote 148)
The Fourteenth Amendment is certainly the major ''culprit'' if we are concerned about reining in the Court. By ''incorporation'' of the Bill of Rights, and by creating under the doctrine of ''substantive due process'' rights which are contained nowhere in the Constitution at all, the Court has used the Fourteenth Amendment to nationalize some of the most important policy questions that the Constitution properly leaves to the states.
A broad approach to this problem would be for Congress to avail itself of its seldom-used power under Article III to regulate and make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction-as well as its complete authority over the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. It would take careful draftsmanship to close all the loopholes to judicial creativity, but Congress ought to take up legislation declaring all questions regarding the application of the Bill of Rights to states and local governments off limits for the federal courts at every level. Where the ''extra-constitutional'' rights currently packed into the due process clause are concerned-such as the ''right of privacy'' at the heart of the abortion decisions-even more care would need to be taken in drafting appropriate jurisdictional legislation. For how does one describe a protean legal fiction with sufficient precision so as to exorcise it from the law of the land? The problem is rather like legislating that the courts shall no longer hear cases concerning dragons only to learn that they are hearing cases concerning unicorns instead. But I am convinced it is worth the effort.
For some, the option of ''jurisdiction-stripping'' by statute poses a potential difficulty, inasmuch as the legislation could itself be subject to judicial review, and the Court could conceivably declare it unconstitutional.(see footnote 149) But the leading precedents suggest otherwise: if Congress cleanly removes certain types of cases from the Court's jurisdiction, the justices will not dare to act on such cases. Only if the Congress attempts to interfere in how the Court decides the cases it does hear, by predetermining their outcome or by fixing the probative value of evidence in a constitutional case, will the justices strike down purported efforts to regulate their jurisdiction-and rightly so.(see footnote 150) Avoid that sort of problem, and this congressional power can be a potent check on the Court.
Not only that, Congress can restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the Suprme Court itself! The Constitution, Art. III, section 2, gives the jursidiction of the Supreme Court.
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 [Modified by Amendment XI]; — 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.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Yhwhsman
The issue here is not the Ten Commandments or religion at all, but usurpation and abuse of power by federal judges, who have NO jurisdiction in this case, yet falsely claim that they do. Just because these abuses have been taking place for nearly a century does not mean they are legal.
It is time to cut the heads off this hydra of judicial legislation. Justice Moore, if he stays true to his cause, may be the one to slay this terrible beast and restore balance to federal versus state powers.
But he'll need help, and if the U.S. Supreme Court does not wish to uphold the law in this case, then the onus falls upon Congress, and its impeachment powers.
Here's hoping they finally do their jobs and halt the illegal abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
The issue here is not the Ten Commandments or religion at all, but usurpation and abuse of power by federal judges, who have NO jurisdiction in this case, yet falsely claim that they do. Just because these abuses have been taking place for nearly a century does not mean they are legal.
THE BLIND CITING THE BLIND, LEADING THE DEAF & DUMB CONGRESS INTO MARXISM:
One of the most important doctrines in Western law is that of stare decisis, a Latin term of art which means "to stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudications".[1] In modern jurisprudence, however, it has come to take on a life of its own, with all precedents being presumed to be well-founded unbiased legal decisions, rather than political decisions, and presumed to have both the authority of the black-letter law on which they are based, plus that of the precedents on which they are based, so that later precedents are presumed to be more authoritative than earlier ones.
The doctrine also tends to give great weight to the opinion in the case, even to the point of treating the opinion as though it was law, even though only the order and findings have the actual force of law, and only in that case, and an explanation of how the decision was reached is only dictum, or commentary. This means that a poorly-worded opinion can define a set of legal positions that exceed the bounds of the underlying black letter law, and become the basis for future precedents, as though it were black letter law itself. The problem is exacerbated by the failure of judges to clearly delineate the boundaries between edict and dictum. How stare decisis Subverts the Law
EVEN FINDLAW RECOGNIZES:
Thus, the nature of active review in equal protection jurisprudence remains in flux, subject to shifting majorities and varying degrees of concern about judicial activism and judicial restraint. But the cases, more fully reviewed hereafter, clearly indicate that a sliding scale of review is a fact of the Court's cases, however much its doctrinal explanation lags behind.
No, not really. Without a little study on the "missing" 13th Amendment all this talk is vain, ignorant raving.
Judge Moore is like an Army major disobeying a direct order from a two-star general. One has to question Judge Moore's motives as he could enlighten the general public about the "missing" 13 Amendment and why judges can legislate from bench.
I said long ago when this all started that Justice Moore will not back down. A line has been drawn - with the FEDERAL courts ATTEMPTING to legalize homosexuality/sodomy, abortion and deny the existance of God, they have simply hurried their own demise. The vast majority of Americans disagree with the courts on these issues, and to paraphrase, 'they're mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore'.
Kudos to Justice Roy S. Moore.
To compare Moore’s refusal to bow to the atheist/left-wing/ACLU axis with George Wallace’s standing in the schoolhouse door to preserve segregation in 1962 is ludicrous, declares Lowenthal.
Compare it instead to the state of Georgia's refusal to comply with Chisholm v. GA 2 Dall. 419 (1793).
Oh, they understand them. They just despise them.
The BoR only limits the federal government - not the states. IMHO, the Federal courts lack jurisdiction per the 11th and the 10th Amendments. But it would be interesting if Justice Moore would enlighten the public.
And that ol' Roy Moore, now there's a X'tian in need of a high tech lynchin.'
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.