Trying to make it a partisan thing eh? It seems (according to the poll my Ron Paul thread) it is more than just libertarians agreeing with Ron. You don't have to like it, you just have to deal with it.
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
I keep saying its a horrible idea and the only people who like it are libertarians, which is basically the party for really horrible ideas. Thankfully, lolbs are an extremely small number of people who think they have a noticeable voice in things because the internet is a fantastic echo chamber.
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Why not just sit in the middle of the floor and lay on your back kicking and screaming?
Seriously though, if you want it to change then vote to do so. As stated before (but conveniently disregarded), its easier to change state laws than a federal one.
We have been over this a couple times now, yet here you are once again saying (basically) the same thing. Is this all you can drum up on Ron Paul? If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
I keep saying its a horrible idea and the only people who like it are libertarians, which is basically the party for really horrible ideas. Thankfully, lolbs are an extremely small number of people who think they have a noticeable voice in things because the internet is a fantastic echo chamber.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: electronicmaji
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Perhaps you could lay out a few examples.
Yes, please expand on how Dr, Paul has ignored or disregarded The Constitution. Also, what in the world would lead you to believe he opposes equal rights? And please, for the love of Pete, don't half quote the Wikipedia article referring to a blatantly racist publication that Dr. Paul DID NOT write or condone.
Lets all take a gander at:
HR300
The basic premise of the bill is that the supreme court will not be able to rule on cases regarding gay marriage, abortion, school prayer and anything to do with religion. In other words, if a state wishes to make Christianity its state religion and prevent anyone who isn't Christian from running then can do so (like Texas). Or make sodomy illegal again (like Texas).
The original forefathers beleived in individual state rights. That is nothing new.
So, its wrong for the federal government to oppress, but its OK for the states to do it. Peachy.
It's a hell of a lot easier to change state laws than it is federal. Plus, it's much easier to move to another state than it is to move to another country. Plus, states like California need to be able to cater to a "broader" base then say, Wisconsin. That's the point of the states having government in the first place. They were never meant to be subservient to the federal government as they are now.
I have explained it to him just like you did. But he will sly away now and come back a week later stating the same argument.
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: electronicmaji
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Perhaps you could lay out a few examples.
Yes, please expand on how Dr, Paul has ignored or disregarded The Constitution. Also, what in the world would lead you to believe he opposes equal rights? And please, for the love of Pete, don't half quote the Wikipedia article referring to a blatantly racist publication that Dr. Paul DID NOT write or condone.
Lets all take a gander at:
HR300
The basic premise of the bill is that the supreme court will not be able to rule on cases regarding gay marriage, abortion, school prayer and anything to do with religion. In other words, if a state wishes to make Christianity its state religion and prevent anyone who isn't Christian from running then can do so (like Texas). Or make sodomy illegal again (like Texas).
The original forefathers beleived in individual state rights. That is nothing new.
So, its wrong for the federal government to oppress, but its OK for the states to do it. Peachy.
It's a hell of a lot easier to change state laws than it is federal. Plus, it's much easier to move to another state than it is to move to another country. Plus, states like California need to be able to cater to a "broader" base then say, Wisconsin. That's the point of the states having government in the first place. They were never meant to be subservient to the federal government as they are now.
I have explained it to him just like you did. But he will sly away now and come back a week later stating the same argument.
Wow, just wow, guys.
So, you think, even support, Ron Paul's idea that Congress can pass a law telling the SCOTUS when they can or can't rule on a Constitutional issue?
That Congress can limit the Constitutional duty of the Judiciary branch?
Do you acknowledge that Congress cannot pass laws that are contradictory to the Constitution. There is a process for amending the Constitution and it includes states (which from your posts you should appreciate).
If Congress can't pass a law in violation the Constitution, how can they limit the Constitutional rsposibilities of another branch?
Balance of power etc? Any of you RP supporters?
This is really nutty stuff.
Of course the federal government can lord over the states, but it's in limited areas. If the fed couldn't we wouldn't be a counrty, we'd be 50 different countries with DC and some possessions.
Think of the Interstate Commerce clause. Without the feds having that ability, any one of the states could forbid the importation of competing products from another state. They could place import duties upon them. This sh!t has happened in our early past.
I again assert that Paul and his supporters lack any understanding of the Constitution, our history or any ramifications of his proposals.
Once you establish (which is impossible) the precident of Congressional ability to change the Constitution as they like, to impose severe limits upon SCOTUS and their Constitutional duties you have no idea where it could ultimtely lead to. What's to stop any state from from disregarding the prohibition against unreasonable search & siezures, garrisonning troops in your home etc?
Paul and his supporters are not in favor of upholding the Contitution, they are in favor of obliterating it.
You wana break up the union and create 50 different soveriegn states and dump the Constitution, fine make that argument. But to pursue that while claiming it's an effort to uphold the Constitution is the higherst level of absurdity I've seen in a very long long time.
Good job, you guys have convinced me you & Paul are the fringe loonies others claim.
Fern
Once you establish (which is impossible) the precident of Congressional ability to change the Constitution as they like, to impose severe limits upon SCOTUS and their Constitutional duties you have no idea where it could ultimtely lead to. What's to stop any state from from disregarding the prohibition against unreasonable search & siezures, garrisonning troops in your home etc?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
They amended The Constitution to include this phrase for a reason. If you take significant objection to it, then write your representatives and request they have it repealed.
And to those saying I don't understand The Constitution and thus the implications of this law, did you actually read the text of the law or did you just read the summary and run with it? If you read it, then please point out the provisions which are unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure I see Constitutional text as well as case law documented right in the text of the bill which argues it's validity. Please, share your own constitutional text or case law that refutes any line item of the bill as proposed and I will gladly admit that Dr. Paul and the cosigners of the bill are trying to "shred the constitution." However, if you cannot provide such, then please stop spewing unfounded accusations. Say you don't like Dr. Paul all you like, it's your right to have that opinion, but accusing someone of shredding the document that they are sworn to uphold (and do so with more integrity than most others having sworn the same oath) is libel sir.
Originally posted by: morkinva
I'm sure that sign ticked you off enough for you to post this silly thread.
Note to mods: This thread should not be added to the "maximum Ron Paul threads allowed' counter, as it was not posted by someone with something to discuss, but by a staunchly anti-Paul, angry troll.
Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I like Ron Paul. He's a libertarian, and we don't see that often (yes, I like the libertarian ideals). I'll be of voting age for the election (although I can't seem to find the date on the primary for Massachusetts), and I'll probably give him my support.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
He's some presidential candidate who gets some attention from obscure radio stations and a grouping of fringe internet lunatics, who think he's gonna be our next president.
Here are his credentials:
1. Republican
2. Religeous
3. Texan
4. Possesses one of those "penis like" noses, similar to Bill O'reilly's (another nut job)
And hell be damned, but this country has not recovered from the last Republican presidency, and probably won't during this generation and the next.
Need I say more?
You bring tears to my eyes :beer: :thumbsup:
Originally posted by: sirjonk
accusing someone of shredding the document that they are sworn to uphold (and do so with more integrity than most others having sworn the same oath) is libel sir.
No, it isn't. It's just mean which is legal.
Originally posted by: Fern
Wow, just wow, guys.
So, you think, even support, Ron Paul's idea that Congress can pass a law telling the SCOTUS when they can or can't rule on a Constitutional issue?
That Congress can limit the Constitutional duty of the Judiciary branch?
Do you acknowledge that Congress cannot pass laws that are contradictory to the Constitution. There is a process for amending the Constitution and it includes states (which from your posts you should appreciate).
If Congress can't pass a law in violation the Constitution, how can they limit the Constitutional rsposibilities of another branch?
Balance of power etc? Any of you RP supporters?
This is really nutty stuff.
Of course the federal government can lord over the states, but it's in limited areas. If the fed couldn't we wouldn't be a counrty, we'd be 50 different countries with DC and some possessions.
Think of the Interstate Commerce clause. Without the feds having that ability, any one of the states could forbid the importation of competing products from another state. They could place import duties upon them. This sh!t has happened in our early past.
I again assert that Paul and his supporters lack any understanding of the Constitution, our history or any ramifications of his proposals.
Once you establish (which is impossible) the precident of Congressional ability to change the Constitution as they like, to impose severe limits upon SCOTUS and their Constitutional duties you have no idea where it could ultimtely lead to. What's to stop any state from from disregarding the prohibition against unreasonable search & siezures, garrisonning troops in your home etc?
Paul and his supporters are not in favor of upholding the Contitution, they are in favor of obliterating it.
You wana break up the union and create 50 different soveriegn states and dump the Constitution, fine make that argument. But to pursue that while claiming it's an effort to uphold the Constitution is the higherst level of absurdity I've seen in a very long long time.
Good job, you guys have convinced me you & Paul are the fringe loonies others claim.
Fern
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: sirjonk
accusing someone of shredding the document that they are sworn to uphold (and do so with more integrity than most others having sworn the same oath) is libel sir.
No, it isn't. It's just mean which is legal.
Libel - anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
Stating the Constitution Candidate shreds the Constitution fits the definition of libel if those making said statements know them not to be true.
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Nah, I think this is just you want to believe. No Libertarian, which Paul is, wants the dissolution of the United States as a whole, independent nation. No one wants to overturn old, sensible precedents like McCulloch v. Maryland. States rights is an old argument but very much a conservative position, Paul isn't out of line there. I also haven't heard this supposed stated by Paul that if he were president he'd pass a law dictating when the SC can or can't rule on constitutional issues.
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: sirjonk
accusing someone of shredding the document that they are sworn to uphold (and do so with more integrity than most others having sworn the same oath) is libel sir.
No, it isn't. It's just mean which is legal.
Libel - anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
Stating the Constitution Candidate shreds the Constitution fits the definition of libel if those making said statements know them not to be true.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you over your ridiculously broad definition of libel. Clearly you want the courts so bogged down in libel litigation that they'd never be able to address all the issues RP wants removed from their jurisdiction under HR 300. Nice try.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Sorry, I call BULLSHIT!
He is going through the proper channels. Amending the Constitution. Now whats wrong with him trying to amend it? Does it make it a "decree" or "law"? No. It still has to be passed by congress. Get a grip my friend. Unfortunately for us all, our current president sidestepped or backroom bartered the war in Iraq. Yet that is much more heinous than trying to amend the Constitution through congress itself. You would have an argument if Ron Paul could "decree" it without congressional approval. Thats simply not the case here.
Please check the procedures for amending the Constitution. The bill linked above is NOT in accordance with either of the two way to amend to the constitution. My read of the full text indicates it is simply a Congressional bill, not a proposal for an amendment.
Congress can pass an amendment, but then must it ratified by the states within 7 yes etc to become effective.
This reads simply like a bill. I see no evidence that he is pursuing "proper channels".
If he intendes to follow proper proceedure, he should craft an amendment, and label it as such, not a bill.
Again, Congress can NOT in and of itself amendment the Constitution.
GWB is another topic, we have enough material here without mixing that in.
Being 50 sovereign states yet one nation. You do not need an all powerful federal government to maintain a nation. The benefits far outweigh the cons to state controlled government.
"50 sovereign states yet one nation" That is an oxymoron sentance. particular emphasis on the term "sovereign". You are either sovereign, or you're not. If your are a sovereign state, that precludes the concept of us (collectively) being a nation.
If a state is sovereign, it can be part of a supranational entity. An example is the EU. Nevertheless, to do so, each state (Euro country) had to give up some part of it's sovereignty.
Please note: I'm not really debating you people on the merits of his proposals. Rather, a more accurate description of what they are. His proposals do not modify the current government, they change it completely into something currently unrecognizable here.
Esentially, it strikes me as far closer to a modied EU structure. You're just dumped the Constitution all together if you wanna give Congress such powers over the judiciary. The judiciary is meaningless as a branch if Congress could lord over it in such a way. The SCOTUS could never strike down a law passed by Congress unless wanted to allow it. It's meaningless. Additionaly, you've just gutted another role of the courts, settling disputes between the Exec & Legislative branch. God only knows what that would lead to.
These proposals also set up a system where different states' citizens have different "Constitutional" rights (although they wouldn't be Constitutional as such, they'd be state rights). That's a very radical proposal.
You' ste up all types of unforseen problems. Think if some states a very liberal vew (liberal in the classic meaning) and allowed almost any type of weapon. What if the neighboring state wanted to prohibit machine guns? How they gonna enforce, we don't have any knid of maned borders between states. Same with drugs etc. There's gonna be a lot of fighting between states.
The federal gov is the glue that holds the states together and arbitrates there disputes. If you gut that what are we gona do. Have each state negotiate treaties with each other?
I do not care what you or others think. So you can keep your name calling to yourself. If anything in the past you have shown intelligence, and even some with this post, but ruin it with your personal attacks.
I apologise for the "loony" remark. But I'm giving you enough attention to pay atention to what you RP suporters propose. But to propose tinkering with the branches of the fed gov, and making big changes to Constitution and it's application to citizens is IMO more complicated that brain surgery. I'm not kidding or exegerating.
A review of some SCOTUS cases would be extremely helpful. I don't mean articles about them, I mean rwading what the justices wrote. They explain things very well, and not often in dense lawyerly prose either. For example, you wanna know about declaring war and Congress v the Pres. Check out the Padilla case, and the opinion written by Murkasey (sp?). padilla tried to use the defense that Congress hadn't actually declared war. You'll find they don't need to, and the reasons SCOTUS and others have said so.
You wanna see ome balance of power stuff? I'd recommend teh line item veto case NY brough agaoinst Clinton. Been a long while since I've seen it, but in understanding why the Pres can't have that ability, you'll get a good reading on balance of power and Constitutional duties of the brances etc.
Wanna get a sense of the power of the SCOTUS (Judicail branch) check Madison v Marbury (that's a bit unusual in the number of issues addressed simutaneously, it's no longer done that way) or even a commentary at Wiki.
EDIT: I would like to address this one as well:
Once you establish (which is impossible) the precident of Congressional ability to change the Constitution as they like, to impose severe limits upon SCOTUS and their Constitutional duties you have no idea where it could ultimtely lead to. What's to stop any state from from disregarding the prohibition against unreasonable search & siezures, garrisonning troops in your home etc?
First the Constitution would have to be amended by congress. Then if the states wanted to "invade your home" "send in troops" that would have to be allowed by law too. A state law would have to be supported by state residents to become law.
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Nah, I think this is just you want to believe. No Libertarian, which Paul is, wants the dissolution of the United States as a whole, independent nation. No one wants to overturn old, sensible precedents like McCulloch v. Maryland. States rights is an old argument but very much a conservative position, Paul isn't out of line there. I also haven't heard this supposed stated by Paul that if he were president he'd pass a law dictating when the SC can or can't rule on constitutional issues.
You're right, he's not waiting till he's president.
RPs HR300:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) 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;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) 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
Further, he goes and advocates anarchy:
SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.
Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States vests the judicial power of the United States in `one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'.
(2) Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States give Congress the power to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts.
(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.
(4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)).
(5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.
(6) Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees each State a republican form of government.
(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.
(9) Even supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's decisions overturning the abortion laws of all 50 States are constitutionally flawed (e.g. Ely, `The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade' 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973)).
(10) Several members of the Supreme Court have admitted that the Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction is indefensible (e.g. Zelamn v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 688 (2002) (Souter, J., dissenting); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 861 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 399, (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring); and Committee for Public Ed. And Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 671 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
(11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Nah, I think this is just you want to believe. No Libertarian, which Paul is, wants the dissolution of the United States as a whole, independent nation. No one wants to overturn old, sensible precedents like McCulloch v. Maryland. States rights is an old argument but very much a conservative position, Paul isn't out of line there. I also haven't heard this supposed stated by Paul that if he were president he'd pass a law dictating when the SC can or can't rule on constitutional issues.
You're right, he's not waiting till he's president.
RPs HR300:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) 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;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) 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
Further, he goes and advocates anarchy:
SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.
Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.
Ah, I see what Fern meant. Good find. But I also see this, which what is first listed in his proposed act:
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States vests the judicial power of the United States in `one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'.
(2) Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States give Congress the power to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts.
(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.
(4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)).
(5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.
(6) Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees each State a republican form of government.
(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.
(9) Even supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's decisions overturning the abortion laws of all 50 States are constitutionally flawed (e.g. Ely, `The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade' 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973)).
(10) Several members of the Supreme Court have admitted that the Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction is indefensible (e.g. Zelamn v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 688 (2002) (Souter, J., dissenting); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 861 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 399, (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring); and Committee for Public Ed. And Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 671 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
(11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but Congress does have the right to overturn and correct what they perceive as unjustified SC decisions affecting all 50 states, be it with a law or amendment to the Constitution. The best example being Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman in the early 90's, where Congress got pretty far before coming up short in passing an amendment on flag burning.
Of course, Paul's extremism on state's rights is concerning, but the list you posted of his act includes religion, sexual orientation, and sexual reproduction as those that should no longer be left up to the SC. That's not all-encompassing. Granted, I think the legal wording could be cleaned up to be less broad in that act. Frankly, I'd like to hear what Paul says about it WRT his position on what the SC should be able to rule on.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
According to Evan Lieb the Constitution does permit congress to set the jurisdictional limit(s). Which I had thought I had read before, only now coming back to memory.
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Ah, I see what Fern meant. Good find. But I also see this, which what is first listed in his proposed act:
The Congress finds the following:
(1) -snip-
(2) -snip-
(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.
(4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)). I haven't seen that case, hopefully I'll get time to check it out - oh crap it's from 1872, not sure I can get a copy.
(5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.[
(11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
As to the above references asserting Congressional control over judicial juridiction. Check out Madison v Marbury. IIRC, that case set precedence where SCOTUS used Constitutional argument/construction to pretty much blow that sh!t right outta the water. That case occured right about 1800. It hasn't be overturned, or even really challenged AFAIK.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but Congress does have the right to overturn and correct what they perceive as unjustified SC decisions affecting all 50 states, be it with a law or amendment to the Constitution. The best example being Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman in the early 90's, where Congress got pretty far before coming up short in passing an amendment on flag burning.
I'll agree with teh part about a passing a Constitutional amendment along with the states' ratification.
But where do you get that part about "Congress does have the right to overturn and correct what they perceive as unjustified SC decisions affecting all 50 states, be it with a law.."
You seem to be saying that Congress can pass a law to overturn SCOTUS decisions they don't agree with. I don't think so, so I'd like to see what you got.
Of course, Paul's extremism on state's rights is concerning, but the list you posted of his act includes religion, sexual orientation, and sexual reproduction as those that should no longer be left up to the SC. That's not all-encompassing. No, it's not all encompassing. But if you propose that Congress be allowed to set those limits now on SCOTUS, what's next? There's nothing to stop them further limiting SCOTUS once you establish that precident. Granted, I think the legal wording could be cleaned up to be less broad in that act. Frankly, I'd like to hear what Paul says about it WRT his position on what the SC should be able to rule on.
(4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)).
In 1871, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1870 statute was unconstitutional and that Congress had exceeded its power by invading the province of the judicial branch by prescribing the rule of decision in a particular cause. The Court also ruled that Congress had impermissibly infringed the power of the executive branch by limiting the effect of a Presidential pardon.
Broadly speaking, Klein stands for the proposition that the legislative branch cannot impair the exclusive powers of another branch. Put another way, Klein recognizes and supports the fundamental value of separation of powers defined by the Constitution. Specifically, Klein means that Congress may not direct the outcome of a case by prescribing the rule of decision, nor may Congress impair the power and effect of a Presidential pardon. Read more broadly, Klein suggests, but does not state, that Congress may not use the Exceptions Clause to cripple the Court's ability to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.
The essence of the argument is one of separation of powers: that the Constitution vests the judicial power in the judicial branch, and that neither the legislative nor the executive branch may interfere with the functioning of the judiciary. When Congress passed a law that had the effect of prescribing the rule of decision in a particular cause, Congress "inadvertently passed the limit which separates the legislative from the judicial power." Klein, 80 U.S. at 147. As the Court says: "It is the intention of the Constitution that each of the great co-ordinate departments of the government -- the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial -- shall be, in its sphere, independent of the others." Id.
Originally posted by: AAjax
Is it just me or did a bunch of posts just disappear? My last one sure did. Hmmmm...