The House Repukes think they can limit the US Supreme Court's authority.

[Lex]

.
They are the most disgusting and stupid bunch of Repuke monkeys I have ever heard of. Don't they understand that THEY DON'T HAVE THIS AUTHORITY? Jeez.

Hey boys, read the Constitution. Start with the part about the 3 branches of government and how they work. Really, didn't I learn this in the 5th grade?

----------------------

"House Blocks Supreme Court on Pledge Case Rulings

Thu Sep 23, 2:32 PM ET

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The House passed legislation Thursday that would prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on whether the words "under God" should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance.

In a politically and emotionally charged debate, Democrats said majority Republicans in the chamber were debasing the Constitution in order to force a vote that could hurt Democrats in the election.

The bill, which was passed 247-173, would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases involving the pledge and its recitation and would prevent federal courts from striking the words "under God" from the pledge."



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040923/ap_on_go_co/congress_pledge_of_allegiance

[neuvocat]

1. Didn't the court already vote on that?

[usregimechange]

7. They ruled Newdow didn't have standing to bring the case.

Avoided the merits...

[kestrel91316]

2. Haven't you heard?.....................

The Constitution isn't the law of the land..........the BIBLE is! Christians can do anything they damned well please.

[unblock]

3. it's called a "cheap shot". they know it's unconstitutional

they know full well that the supreme court would strike down this piece of legislation, as congress does not have the authority to strip the courts of the right or review.

statesmen would therefore conclude that such bills should not be passed, nor even proposed, because they would never become upheld law.

cheap politicians, with no respect for the constitution, instead view this as an opportunity for a cheap, "harmless" political stunt. since the bill has no chance of becoming upheld law, they reason, what does it matter? why NOT propose or even pass the bill, score political points, and let the courts, who don't have to face voters, strike it down?

cowardly and disrespectful, but there it is.

[ComerPerro]

10. It serves two Republican goals

One is to force Dems to vote in a manner that would look unfavorable in a campaign.

"Representative ______ voted against a resolution to protect the Pledge of Allegiance and free speech but nevermind that the resolution is completely unConstitutional)."

So, I can guarantee you will see that. They tried for the same shit in the resolution they passed that "honored" the victims of 9/11 on the 3rd anniversary while at the same time praised Bush and mentioned a direct connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.


Second, when this is untimately struck down as being an unConstitutional piece of fasicst garbage, they can bitch and moan about how opressed they are, and they can complain about "activist judges" forcing their views on the public.

Its disgusting, its dirty, its selazy, and it has got to stop.

[RoyGBiv]

4. I hate to say this, but ...

This may or may not be unconstitutional. It depends on the language, which I haven't seen, what, precisely, is being limited, and how it is interpreted.

The right of review has always been somewhat controversial, more so in the earlier days of the republic than in the last century or so, but still, this comes up now and again. The logic behind "judicial review" is based, in part, on the Judiciary Act, which in itself is an act of Congress. Congress can amend that act and in so doing change the scope of the Supreme Court's authority.

Also, look around a bit and take note of legal reasoning that claims decisions are invalid due to the list of authorities including "obiter dictum." More than that, look around for various legal scholars and others on down the food chain drawing from their remarks that claim this or that is "nothing but obiter dictum" or some similar phrasing. The point here is that "obiter dictum" is being declared non-binding or somehow less important. Then consider that the part of the ruling in Marbury v Madison that establishes judicial review is in fact obiter dictum. That is, it is a part of a decision not based on the facts presented in the case for which the decision is presented and as such is not binding on *that case*. Obiter dictum, however, has been traditionally used as precendent opinion in subsequent cases.

Law makers have been reluctant, thankfully, to mess with this, but there is a vocal, and apparently swelling, fringe that is trying to dilute the court system to such an extent that it is not an equal branch of government.

There are even those who have developed reasoning that SCOTUS is not necessary and should be abolished. This is based on how one interprets the judiciary clause by way of comparing them to the clauses establishing the executive and legislative branches. Unlike the other two branches, the Constitution is not specific as to the make-up of SCOTUS, only that any judicial power that exists shall be vested in that one Court and whatever other courts the Congress chooses to create. By reading this a certain way and noting that the Congress is given the power to establish the Court, the inference is that the opposite is true, i.e. the Congress has the power *not* to establish a Court, or, if it already has, to dis-establish it. I think this is very weak, but then I thought the case for going to war with Iraq was weak also.

Note that I am not advocating these arguments, rather pointing out that this is not a simple matter we can safely dismiss as purely a propaganda device in an election year. The people behind this idea are serious about it and want to extend it to other uses once the precedent is set. The strategy seems to be to push it through using a highly charged emotional issue that legislators are afraid to oppose and that a lot of zealots will support without question. Also note that at least one of our current Court members is himself critical of judicial review.

[Lex]

5. I agree it is a creeping threat. They'd like to destroy the foundations

of this country. They are religious zealots and they are the VERY people that the founding fathers were trying to protect us against.

[Lizzie Borden]

32. Bingo!

[Pallas180]

6. shades of hitler...when will they burn down the court & arrest congress??

[usregimechange]

8. duck hunter nt

[RoyGBiv]

9. That would be the one. n/t

[Kenergy]

11. Very good discourse Roy...

Where did you study law at?

[RoyGBiv]

28. LOL!!!

Well, ummm, at home. :-)

Seriously, my analysis of the situation is based on historical study, not strictly legal study. I have a lot of background in 19th century political history. I'm sure there are holes in my discourse through which any decent lawyer could drive a truck. I certainly hope so anyway. Otherwise, we're doomed.

The point is simply that this isn't cut and dried, no matter how much most of us might want it to be. This is more a political question than a strictly legal one in addition to being an extension of the "original intent" vs "living document" schools of thought with regard to constitutional interpretation. There are advocates of limiting or even eliminating judicial review, and there are members of the court system itself among those advocates, which is, and should be, terrifying. The advocates have changed tactics in recent years, moving away from the theoretical and rhetorical wrangling and into more practical measures, taken in small steps, with the ultimate goal of reversing Marbury v Madison.

[dansolo]

19. It is definitely unconstitutional

It forbids the Supreme Court from hearing cases involving the pledge and its recitation. This is their attempt to bypass the First Amendment without having to amend the Constitution. I'd expect that a similar law dealing with flag-burning will be next. Then political protests. There is no way that even this Supreme Court would allow this sort of law to stand.

[Shrek]

20. Please see post 16

How could the Court overturn the law when the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the necessary authority?

[RoyGBiv]

29. Nothing definite about it ...

With the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress claimed the right to establish what kinds of powers the Court had beyond what the Constitution specifically provided, the latter being very little. Marbury v Madison, among other things, reversed this, claiming that the Court was answerable to the Constitution itself and that the judiciary was the branch of government with final authority over constitutional interpretation. In essence, Marshall opined that Congress established the courts, but beyond this, its power over them was limited and non-existent when it came to Constitutional interpretation. This is nowhere explicitly stated in the Constitution itself. The principle is derived from the Constitution by way of John Marshall's logic, which he used to establish the concept of judicial review.

Make no mistake. This measure is nothing less than an attack on Marbury v. Madison and judicial review itself. The simple fact of the case being heard in the Supreme Court, which, if it is signed into law, it most assuredly will be, will form the basis of what will likely be the largest Constitutional crisis in our lifetime.

[Bandit]

21. If the supreme court were to rule on this bill and find it unconstitutional

How could the argument be resolved? It would IMO create a Constitutional Crisis with no way to resolve it. It could not go to a Court for review since the court would not be recognized by congress. Would this initiate a complete breakdown of our Legal system? Would Bush* have to assume complete control of the situation and rule by decree? In effect creating a dictatorship?

[RoyGBiv]

37. I have no clear answer...

But consider a few historical examples of the Court coming to loggerheads with another branch of government. (It's usually either the President or the Congress, never both, and in the current context, this is truly frightening.)

What happened with Andrew Jackson? He is reported to have said something like, "They have made their decision, now let them enforce it." He had a point. SCOTUS cannot enforce decisions. It can only issue rulings that the executive is supposed to enforce. In that case, it was essentially overlooked. SCOTUS handed down its decision in Worcester v. Georgia. Jackson ignored it. The matter ended up being settled in other ways. Still the principle established in the case remained and was used in other cases that were enforced at times and at others not.

Then there is Lincoln during the Civil War. The Taney Court issued an order that Lincoln did not follow. This was resolved in other ways as well, and the matter never blew up.

Now? I don't know about now. With the current composition of our Court, Congress, and Executive, there very well could be a coup de main that dis-establishes the Court's primacy in Constitutional matters.

[no_hypocrisy]

12. Test balloon. Start with The Pledge. Next: Establishment Clause claims.

Next: Free (Religious) Exercise Clause for unpopular minority religious groups. Next: Free Assembly. Next: Free Press.

You see where I'm going with this . . .

[indepat]

13. Will the Repukes stop at nothing to gain advantage? Have they no decency?

[JCMach1]

14. Separation of powers-- this is unconstitutional at a basic level

and the bill will fail in the Senate because of that...

House repigs playing games again...

[jdj]

15. Oh, honey I just read through a bunch of bills on the congress site

this aint' the only one, they are also trying to limit the court jurisdiction with regards to DOMA. I am as offended as you, it is completely sickening, this tactic. We are either governed by rule of law, or we aren't.

[Shrek]

16. What's unconstitutional about it?

The Constitution itself gives them the authority to do this:

Article 3 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.

It's pretty clear that they've got the authority to strip jurisdiction. Doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

[jdj]

17. Where's Wilford Brimley when you need him?

[Bandit]

23. Doesn't the supreme court rule on what the Constitution says?

They are the ones to interpret the Constitution not Congress. The constitution says only what the Supreme court says it says. I can find many places where the Constitution says one thing and the supreme court says another and guess which one wins out?

[Shrek]

24. To a degree, I think you're right

But can you cite a case where the explicit text is ignored by the Court because they don't like what it says?

From what I've seen they're more likely to rule in gray areas where the text could plausibly be interpreted in more than one way.

[Bandit]

25. How about search and seizure laws

It states quite plainly we are to be secure in our homes, our vehicles and our papers. With drug policy and now Patriot Act none of it applies any longer. You are not secure at all. They can invade your privacy at will without warrant and supreme court upheld this invasion. There actually is a long list which is growing longer as we speak.

[Shrek]

26. But that doesn't create a crisis

If the Court upholds a law passed by Congress, where's the crisis? Both sides are in agreement.

This situation is different, if it arises -- Congress will have passed a law, using the authority explicitly granted to it by Article 3 Section 2. To overturn it, the Court essentially would have to assert that the text does not exist. Now that would be a recipe for crisis, which is why I think it won't happen -- it's just too brazen, even for this Court.

[Bandit]

27. The crisis is our loss of Constitutional authority

There have been many instances where Congress has created a law that the supreme court overruled as being unconstitutional. The only way it becomes a crisis is if Congress no longer accepts the Supreme Court's authority. Whether that will happen in this case or not is yet to be apparent. They will not give up their right to decide law easily.

[RoyGBiv]

34. Gray areas...

That does seem to be the primary characteristic of the Court in the last couple decades. It has no real ideological center in the mold of some of the more famous Courts of previous eras. For most of us, this is not necessarily a bad thing considering which ideology would most likely be represented.

So, they skirt the edges of issues and at times seem driven to find a way not to rule legitimately if the outcome of their ruling might have consequences certain members wouldn't like.

[RoyGBiv]

30. Yes, but...

This is only a practice based on a principle not explicitly stated in the Constitution itself. It is, in fact, based on a Supreme Court decision that was not seriously challenged for a very long time. It is now being challenged. That's the entire point of this law.

[tom_paine]

18. Imperial Amerika is a lawless Thrid-World Nation

They may get away with it.

I would find it wholly unsurprising.

the Constitution has been essentially nullified by Imperial Fiat. It exists only as a sham to keep the Imperial Subjects of Amerika from realizing where they (we) live and what they (we) have allowed to be done to us.

[bloom]

36. And then they pretend to be patriotic

idiotic is more like it.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

22. That's great news!

Now I can transport narcotics and underage prostitutes across state lines and they can't do anything to me as long as I recite the pledge of allegiance when I get arrested.

[Disturbed]

31. Do most Repukes believe in...

a Representative Republik?

It seems to be that Amerika is headed toward a Neo Fascist Police State. Would a Dem. Admin. be able to ward off such an event?

[Seeking Serenity]

33. Fine. Let 'em have their pyrrhic victory with this rather minor issue.

Once the precedent is established and once the Congress returns to the party of the people, we can use the same clause to ban the Supreme Court from having jurisdiction over any case attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade or Doe v. Bolton.

[depakid]

35. Republicans have no respect for law or procedure

period. Nothing that they say or do shocks me anymore. What concerns me is that some Demicrats obviously went along with this charade. That's PRECISELY why they're the minority party in Congress.

[bloom]

38. It would be so great to get a group of kids

to refuse to say the pledge until "under God" was taken out.

And parents to back them up.