Quote:
Originally posted by Journeyman
If I'm reading this right, the law is essentially NOT an amendment to the constitution, but limits the powers granted to the judicial branch of the US Government set out in the consitution.
So essentially, the law gets to last until "activist judges" rule it unconstitutional, and then the "activist judges" get to keep ruling on the items that they're constitutionally charged with.
But I'm not sure if I'm reading it right. Can someone confirm that this is exactly what this bill is set for?
|
Yahoo had at story after it passed the house:
"...The bill would strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says states are not compelled to recognize gay marriages that take place in other states.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it could find no precedent for Congress passing a law to limit federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of another law..."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...e_gay_marriage
Yahoo's article sums up the intent of the bill, with partisan comments by Democrats and Republicans kept out of the quote by me.
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.
Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."
|