Freethought & Rationalism Archive

galiel · 07-06-2002, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Max Bane:

Very roughly, liberal = bigger government, conservative = smaller government - so gun-control is a liberal thing. I guess.

More acurately, liberal = government intervention in economy and public safety, not in matters of private preference; conservative = government intervention in the bedroom, classroom, and research lab, but not in the boardroom. Both support big government, the only difference is what its purview should be and who it serves.

RobertE · 07-09-2002, 11:48 AM

My congress-critter horked up this little gem yesterday.

H.R. 5064: `No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.

Seems he's saying "How dare some mere court take offense at the wise decisions of this most holy legistlative body."

What a twit. It's been sent to the House Judiciary Committee where I hope someone explains to the congressman the whole separation of powers thing.

tragic_pizza · 07-09-2002, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RobertE:
My congress-critter horked up this little gem yesterday.

H.R. 5064: `No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.

Seems he's saying "How dare some mere court take offense at the wise decisions of this most holy legistlative body."

What a twit. It's been sent to the House Judiciary Committee where I hope someone explains to the congressman the whole separation of powers thing.

Gads. Let's hope that little idiocy dies in committee.

My fellow Fundamentlaists are quick to bemoan judges making legislation (Roe v. Wade, etc.) Why is it now permissible to put the shoe on the other foot?

I'd pull my hair out, had I any...

Stephen Maturin · 07-10-2002, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RobertE:
My congress-critter horked up this little gem yesterday.

H.R. 5064: `No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.

Oh brother, here we go again. Every time a federal court does something politically unpopular some nutburger in Congress introduces a court-stripping bill. This one's reminiscent of Jesse Helms' attempt to divest federal courts of jurisdiction to decide school prayer cases back in the 80s.

Unfortunately, separation-of-powers principles don't necessarily cut much ice with these folks. They usually come back with quotes like this:

Quote:

The decision with respect to inferior federal courts, as well as the task of defining their jurisdiction, was left to the discretion of Congress. That body was not constitutionally required to create inferior Art. III courts * * *. Nor, if inferior federal courts were created, was it required to invest them with all the jurisdiction it was authorized to bestow under Art. III. "[T]he judicial power of the United States . . . is (except in enumerated instances, applicable exclusively to this court) dependent for its distribution and organization, and for the modes of its exercise, entirely upon the action of Congress, who possess the sole power of creating the tribunals (inferior to the Supreme Court) . . . and of investing them with jurisdiction either limited, concurrent, or exclusive, and of withholding jurisdiction from them in the exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good." Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245 (1845).

<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=411&invol=389#4 01" target="_blank">Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 400-01 (1973)</a>.

Theoretically, at least, Congress can do away with federal district courts and circuits courts of appeals entirely, leaving the adjudication of all federal constitutional claims to state courts. Last time I checked (and it's been a long while), the authority of Congress to withdraw federal jurisdiction over specific classes of constitutional issues was a matter of much debate.

RufusAtticus · 07-10-2002, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RobertE:
H.R. 5064: `No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.

I guess he is admitting that the Newdow descision did have merit. If it was as "ridiculous" and "stupid" as the people in washington claim it is, then it should have little problem getting overturned.

~~RvFvS~~

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2002, 11:48 AM	#12
RobertE Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: St. Louis Posts: 116	My congress-critter horked up this little gem yesterday. H.R. 5064: `No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'. Seems he's saying "How dare some mere court take offense at the wise decisions of this most holy legistlative body." What a twit. It's been sent to the House Judiciary Committee where I hope someone explains to the congressman the whole separation of powers thing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.