We the People Act (H.R. 300)1
says the “The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court” may not adjudicate –
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;
any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
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 that
a violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of the Act 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.
The first screaming objection you hear upon mentioning jurisdiction stripping legislation is “THEY CAN’T DO THAT!” But that intimidating objection, from those with acute cases of delirium, does nothing to prove that Congress hasn’t already done so on many occasions: “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.” 2 The only thing that opponents could mean is that the Constitution prohibits what the text of Article III explicitly permits: Just “ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall.”3
Wonderland, like Disneyland, expects visitors to eventually leave. But for those who have taken up permanent residence in Alice’s adventure, consider what Chief Justice John Roberts said once upon a time, in a place far, far away from the state of affairs today:4
When Chief Justice John Roberts was Special Assistant to the Attorney General during the Reagan Administration, he wrote a 27-page document defending the constitutional power of Congress to limit federal court jurisdiction. Proving that Supreme Court justices recognize this power over the courts, he pointed out that former Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts (no relation) had proposed an "amendment of the Constitution to remove Congress' exceptions power."
The Owen Roberts amendment was passed by the Senate in 1953 but then tabled by the House. John Roberts concluded that Congress's constitutional authority to make exceptions to federal court jurisdiction is so clear that only a new constitutional amendment could deny it.
Last fall, Congress proved again that it has the power to define court jurisdiction by giving immunity to gun manufacturers and owners from lawsuits that try to impose liability on them for the criminal misuse of their weapons by others. This Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was promptly signed by President Bush.
Is there more to this picture than meets the eye? Is a devil lurking somewhere in the details of Constitutional explication? Why doesn’t your representative ever mention it? Why does the media avoid it? Why do all the political action organizations suppress this truth? How do we know that Roberts wasn’t on mushrooms in Wonderland? Once upon a time, there was a just Justice in the minority for a minority, who informed everyone how to calibrate their Constitutional baloney detector:5
[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Who, other than Roberts, and the author of the posted article can we turn to for a strict interpretation? How do we know that the Constitutional text means exactly what it states? Examine the written and oral Congressional testimonies of Martin H. Redish, Louis And Harriet Ancel Professor Of Law And Public Policy, Northwestern Law School;6 Phyllis Schlafly, Founder And President, Eagle Forum;7 the Prepared Statement of Professor Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus of Law, Notre Dame Law School, submitted by Rep. Steve Chabot,8 and others in agreement with those expert witnesses. Obviously, Red Queens in black robes and their acolytes are in opposition to the text. Professor Redish calls them “phantoms” – a euphemistic term for the citizens of Wonderland and postmodernism.
A couple of years ago, some churchmen signed a document acknowledging that abortion is murder.9 The fact that abortion is murder (at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws)10 is acknowledged by atheist Doris Gordon, founder of Libertarians For Life.11 The reign of terror precipitated by the federal court and unopposed by nearly every politician finds no refuge in religion or in its absence. This reign of terror, licensing murder, is based in anarchy:12
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger….
The following is some commentary by too few voices against anarchy:
Ending Pro-Abortion Judicial Tyranny13
Why We Need The "We The People" Act (H.R. 300)14
The Imperial Judiciary15
Bill limits federal courts: Would stop judges from ruling on abortion, same-sex marriage cases16
We, The People Act17
31 years since roe and counting18
2006 State Republican Party Platform of Texas19
1 http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/home.asp Representative Ron Paul reintroduced the We the People Act (H.R. 300) on January 5, 2007 with cosponsors Rep. Walter B. Jones, Jr.; and Rep. Ted Poe to "limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, in certain cases."
Are you fed up with activist federal judges telling our children that they can't say the Pledge of Allegiance? Do you want federal courts telling you that there is a right to pornography in schools but God must be kept out of the classroom? That's what some courts are saying, but Congress can stop them.
Do you want federal courts forcing partial-birth abortion on America as a "constitutional right" by striking down state laws duly enacted by the people to ban that gruesome procedure? Do you want federal courts declaring that homosexuals have "special rights" that you and I don't have, or forcing racial quotas and affirmative action on jobs and higher education? If not, then do something about it.
2 http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/oct/06/20031006-085845-5892r/ Article III, Section 2, updated 12:00 a.m., October 7, 2003.
3 http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/j/jefferson_airplane/white_rabbit.html Jefferson Airplane
White Rabbit lyrics. “When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead”
4 http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-25.html Can Congress Limit Federal Court Jurisdiction?
5 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZX4.html PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, et al., PETITIONERS 91-744 v. ROBERT P. CASEY, et al., etc. ROBERT P. CASEY, et al., etc., PETITIONERS 91-902. Justice Scalia, with whom the Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
9 http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5358 That They May Have Life, 2006 First Things (October 2006). A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Thus the most basic commandment of neighbor-love is “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17). “You shall not kill” is rightly understood as “You shall not murder.” The direct and intentional taking of innocent human life in abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and embryonic research is rightly understood as murder. In the exceedingly rare instance of direct threat to the life of the mother, saving her life may entail the death of the unborn child. Such rare and tragic instances are in sharpest contrast to the unlimited abortion license created by the Supreme Court, resulting in more than forty million deaths since 1973.
10 http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 19 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"), indicated below with an asterisk (*).
11 http://www.l4l.org/library/someinfo.html As libertarians, LFL's interest in the abortion debate is in everyone's unalienable rights. LFL's reasoning is philosophical, not religious. Some LFL associates are religious; others, such as Gordon, are atheists.
12 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm The Federalist Papers : No. 51
13 http://www.prolifealliance.com/sanctity%20of%20life%20act.html Members of the National Pro-Life Alliance are putting heat on politicians to bring an end to pro-abortion judicial tyranny by passing the Sanctity of Life Act.
14 http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom78.htm By Tom DeWeese, March 21, 2007. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by Congress.
15 http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry51.htm THE IMPERIAL JUDICIARY, By Larry Pratt
December 3, 2005. Does the Constitution provide for judicial supremacy through the process of judicial review? Attorney Edwin Vieira, J.D. answers with an emphatic “No!” in his book Imperial Judiciary. A look at Article III of the Constitution does not reveal a heavy work load for the Supremes: the court has original jurisdiction in cases involving states as well as diplomats. All other cases are brought on appeals, and if the lower courts are eliminated by Congress which has that authority, that ends the discussion.
16 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48319 Call it the 10th Amendment Restoration Act.
17 http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2673 One of TVC’s primary goals during the next several years is to take back our federal courts from radical leftwing activist judges who have no respect for the Constitution or the laws passed by state legislatures or Congress.
18 http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2004/jan04/04-01-21.html Republican National Coalition for Life. Pro-life Republicans should expect candidates to have a consistent position on the right to life.
Too many politicians get away with splitting the difference. On the one hand, they say they are pro-life, and on the other, send a signal to the pro-abortion crowd that they are really no threat to legal abortion after all.
But then Mr. Ryan sends a different signal. He says, “Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Henry Hyde share my system of beliefs that abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake.” The glaring inconsistency of this position is amazing, and unfortunately, it is an inconsistency that is commonly expressed by politicians and often accepted as sufficient by pro-life voters! It is impossible to believe in the “sanctity of human life from conception until natural death,” and at the same time justify abortion for rape or incest or any other reason.
We must send a loud and clear message to candidates that we will not grant them pro-life status unless they earn it with a publicly stated position that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed—no exceptions—no compromise!
If legal protection of the right to life is to be restored in the United States it will take a majority of Members of the U.S. House and Senate who will exercise their powers under the U.S. Constitution to withdraw jurisdiction from the Courts over these matters. If legislation is to be enacted recognizing that unborn babies are persons under the law, it will take Congressmen and Senators and state legislators who are unconditionally pro-life to do it. If men and women with the dedication and commitment necessary to make these things happen are to be elected it will take pro-life leaders and individual voters who will no longer settle for second best.
19 http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/2006_Plat_with_TOC_2.pdf?docID=2022 Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Congress should be urged to exercise its authority under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution, and should withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
http://nordskogpublishing.com/publisherscorner/TNA%232402_Cover_Story.pdf
SECOND ATTEMPT TO POST THE SOURCE FILE FOR THE ARTICLE
I no longer have my pro-life ping list, but you kind folks might want to ping your lists.
More on Article III Section 2 Jurisdiction Stripping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping
Also in the link below the great Justice Scalia, who is very Pro-Life has stated that he would NOT grant personhood status to the unborn. Thomas is the ONLY one who might. Point being that if even Scalia can be wrong on this how many "Pro-Life Rebublicans" are...
I love the New American and completely agree with the article.
BUT—Christians are going to have to change the culture first through serious Pro-Life education of school age kids before we have the political numbers to make this possible.
And sadly there is little interest from Christian leaders in Pro-Life education.
* List (chapter and verse) all the regulations and laws that need to be repealed in order to drill, and drill now. Use this list as the new “Contract With America for Energy Independence”. Have a mega-bill introduced that in one fell swoop removes the self-imposed energy embargo.
Uhhhh? Blow me?
On the other hand, I find much of the judicial process dubious at best. Judges decide many legal issues on the basis of matters of fact that should properly left to juries. Judges try to come up with standards for how long a cop must wait after knocking before breaking down the door in order to perform a 'reasonable' search, and declare that if a cop waits (or claims to have waited) the requisite amount of time the search is reasonable. Only through judicial vanity could the thousands of pages of Fourth-Amendment precedents be considered a better indication of what is allowable than the Constitution itself.
The first-line rule should be very simple: allow the defense to demand that the jury be informed of all the facts surrounding a search and the execution thereof, and that the jury be instructed that it should ignore any evidence that was obtained unreasonably. The jury should base its decision of reasonableness on common sense--not upon the thousands of pages of anti-Constitution driven which tries to justify unreasonable behavior.