FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 04/08/2015 12:28:45 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was in Iowa yesterday, where the presidential hopeful reflected on the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling endorsing marriage equality. The far-right senator told his audience, “The first thing and I think the most important thing every one of us can do, is pray. Lift up in prayer.”
But as the Dallas Morning News noted, that’s not all Cruz said.
He reiterated his vow to press for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the power of state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If the high court does legalize gay marriage nationwide, he added, he would prod Congress to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue, a rarely invoked legislative tool.
The prospect of changing the U.S. Constitution to block marriages seems a little silly, especially since most Americans actually support equal marriage rights.
But it’s that other part that stood out for me.
“Court-stripping” – or “jurisdiction-stripping,” as some call it – is a fringe idea that doesn’t come up often, largely because it’s just too bizarre for most policymakers to even consider. The idea isn’t complicated: under this scheme, Congress would pass a federal law effectively telling the courts, “We’ve identified a part of the law that judges are no longer allowed to consider.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Well, he is immediately outed as being far-right for starting off by urging his audience to pray. Oh, the horror!
Marriage is a covenant defined by God, not a contract defined by man and thus cannot be regulated by man’s governments.
Because too many government officials are now hostile to how God defines marriage, government is being used to force me to recognize and even enable “marriage” that God tells me is morally repulsive. Just as we have a separation of church and state, we must now have a separation of marriage and state. When marriage is a private matter, then anyone can enter into any manner of relationship they please, but they cannot use government to impose their definition on others.
That is a lie.
(((
Yes, but they will continue with the old communist trick of constantly repeating a lie that they want everyone to come to accept.
Notice how this liar also claims that Cruz is trying to change the Constitution.
“Most Americans support equal rights marriage”
Since when?
A lot of people here consider themselves Constitutionalists, until it comes to ‘marriage’.
No, that does not mean that I support gay marriage, in fact I am vehemently against it.
But as a matter of law, and the Constitution, the federal government needs to stay out of it.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
It means the GOPe have been lying to you all these years, saying their hands are tied by the courts.
US Constitution, Article III, Section 2:
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.Congress, at any time, could add one clause to a piece of legislation, saying "The Supreme Court, and all lesser federal courts, shall have no jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of this Act", and that would be that.
They don't, because they want the credit for passing it, but want to let the Supremes the unpopular duty of striking it down.
Probably because they think the Democrats are the “mushy middle”
Just like Ted Cruz calls the Republicans same.
...reflected on the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling endorsing marriage equality. The far-right senator told his audience, "The first thing and I think the most important thing every one of us can do, is pray. Lift up in prayer." ...He reiterated his vow to press for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the power of state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If the high court does legalize gay marriage nationwide, he added, he would prod Congress to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue, a rarely invoked legislative tool. The prospect of changing the U.S. Constitution to block marriages seems a little silly, especially since most Americans actually support equal marriage rights.
If I understand your comment -
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Congress can enact laws removing certain issues from their original jurisdiction. In fact, they could disestablish all of the district courts if they wanted to (but the judges could probably continue to draw salaries for life).
Under the Constitution, you could pare the federal court system down to the Supreme Court, and give it trial jurisdiction over "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."
So except for the listed items, you could require all trials to be in the state courts, with appeal to the federal courts " 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,—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."
Cruz isn't proposing anything so radical, he's talking about a limited pare back.
Here's the problem with most nuclear options. Conservatives might do it once or twice and rediscover the timids. Then Katy bar the door, every single unConstitutional law passed by fascists liberals would be so designated.
Thanks for the info.
radical?
It’s in the Constitution, unlike everything leftists want
If Gay Marriage becomes the Law of the Land, how can any State have Laws against Polygamy and Incest?
Something that is in the Constitution is “radical” and “fringe” but gay marriage and all that other rot is just mainstream common sense. lol
They do not need to change the Constitution to limit the jurisdiction of the courts on this issue.
Who can afford more than one? That’s why only wealthy men in Islam practice it.
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.