Tonight at the Garden: Congress vs. The Supreme Court - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

nanofever · 07-22-2004, 08:12 PM

" H. R. 3313

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 16, 2003

Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. GOODE, Mr. AKIN, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. FORBES, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction

`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this section. Neither the Supreme Court nor any court created by Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 7 of title 1.'.

(b) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'."

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/quer.../~c1088hZY2J::

I like checks and balances. They keep one branch of the government from making poor decisions, and they stop power mongers from trying to control the entire country. Republican's in Congress are now try to destroy a key part of federal checks and balances. The fact that Republicans created and passed this horrid bill in the House show that they know the Marriage Protection Act is unconstitutional and that they don't care. If this bill *somehow* gets past the Senate, it will set a prescedent that will basically invalidate Judicial oversight of Congress. Congress will simply affix this type of bill to anything it knows is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court will have no recourse. I can't see how this type of political mauvering is good for the country.

/This is all assuming the bill passes the Senate (the Republicans might pull the same bullshit they pulled on healthcare and the Gitmo tribunal to get this billed passed). This is also assuming the Supreme Court doesn't tell Congress to go take a flying fuck and then rule heavily against both defense of marriage and this bill.

Mojo_PeiPei · 07-22-2004, 08:25 PM

Great I'm all for it, I'm sick of activist judges, of either political creed, albeit in this cause Liberal/Dem's, taking away the option of the people on a twisted version of their own interpretation. This bill would stop any federal judge from making a ruling which would circumvent laws that were passed in the states, I couldn't be happier.

Journeyman · 07-22-2004, 08:35 PM

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?

In addendum, all the names you see up there backing this bill: Republicans.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...ort=S&Cong=108

nanofever · 07-22-2004, 08:41 PM

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.

Journeyman · 07-22-2004, 08:47 PM

Quote:

"We face no less than a sign on the courthouse door: 'You may not defend your constitutional rights in this court. You may not seek equal protection here,'" said Rep. Tammy Baldwin (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., the House's lone declared lesbian. "Today, the 'you' is gay and lesbian citizens. But who would be next?"

From the Yahoo article. I don't know who is "next," but I know who was last: Dred Scott.

Mojo_PeiPei · 07-22-2004, 08:53 PM

Dred Scott is in a league of its own, this comes no where near it. State Court's can still find laws unconstitutional, all this does is protect DOMA, a law about respecting state law, from Federal interference.

Journeyman · 07-22-2004, 09:00 PM

And if the DOMA is found to be unconstitutional by a Federal court, then it can be appealed to the supreme court and be settled there. Just because a law is very much liked by some people doesn't mean it's valid in light of the document that defines this very government. That IS for the courts to decide, and I don't find it to be "activist" when they rule a law to be in conflict with laws that supercede it.

If the way things are being run has actually, sincerely gotten out of hand, then this is what you get.

Quote:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Rekna · 07-22-2004, 11:31 PM

the link doesn't work

Journeyman · 07-22-2004, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rekna
the link doesn't work

This is the jist of it.

http://www.house.gov/rules/108rule3313.htm

Superbelt · 07-23-2004, 03:25 AM

Yay, lets been dumbasses and pass a law that will be ruled unconstitutional the day after it gets signed.

It's a nice gesture for our religious nutjob base at least.

And that's about all there is to that.

filtherton · 07-23-2004, 08:59 AM

If they would've passed something like this regarding segregation the country would be a very different place. Those judges were "activists" too. Our past is full of examples of "judicial activism". Many of which are shining moments in our history and examples of why our system is better than most.

An "activist judge" is nothing more than a pair of conservative buzzwords. These judges were just doing their jobs. If doma isn't constitutional than their job is to label it as such and that's that. If doma is constitutional than this farce of a law wouldn't be necessary. Suprise suprise, and issue is being unnecessarily politicized in an election year. I don't know why the republicans feel it soo necessary to pander to the religious right since i think the rr has really no viable alternative when it comes to election day.

nanofever · 07-23-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
I don't know why the republicans feel it soo necessary to pander to the religious right since i think the rr has really no viable alternative when it comes to election day.

"In the 2000 elections, the Constitution Party achieved presidential ballot access in 41 states and qualified write-in candidate status in 7 others. This made for a total of 48 states where people were able to cast their votes for Constitution Party candidates. In addition, the party fielded over 100 candidates nationwide for offices ranging from the federal to the local levels of government."

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of the United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules."

http://www.constitutionparty.com

Think of the constitution party as the green party for the Reilgious Right. I presonally think theocracys are bad, but hey, I'm not a student of history.

Superbelt · 07-23-2004, 10:18 AM

Yeah, Constitution Party is manned by a bunch of former Republicans who think the party doesn't pander enough to the whackjob base.

I live in PA, and the Constitution party is going full force on us. York City has 3 full sized billboards that I know of advertising itself. They have a candidate on the ballot (Clymer) who is openly trying to steal enough votes from moderate Arlen Specter (r) to give Joe Hoeffel the win. And he can do it too. His reasoning is that he wants to keep Specter from chairing the Judicial committee at all costs. Even at the cost of a heathen Democrat. A rally by Clymer and Judge Roy Moore (of ten ton Ten Commandments fame) was attended by several thousand individuals in Lancaster County Pa. Lancaster has always been a stronghold for Republicans. The Constitution party is a real threat to them.

Think what would happen if Roy Moore ran for President, and he is thinking it over. Bush would be royally screwed. Moore is a MOAB compared to Nader's Cherry bomb. The election will be over when Moore delivers several southern base states to Kerry.

That's why they are pulling so hard right in an election year when the conventional wisdom is to run to the center.

CoachAlan · 07-23-2004, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
If doma isn't constitutional than their job is to label it as such and that's that. If doma is constitutional than this farce of a law wouldn't be necessary.

I agree 100%. And this is not a states' rights issue. States do not have the right to decide who has civil liberties and who does not. If someone is a citizen, with full rights and privileges thereof, then they are a citizen everywhere... This issue was settled in 1865.

filtherton · 07-23-2004, 05:58 PM

I had no idea.

w00t! Go constitution party! Your ironic name and fringe ideology are just what the doctor ordered.

07-22-2004, 08:12 PM	#1 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	Tonight at the Garden: Congress vs. The Supreme Court " H. R. 3313 To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 16, 2003 Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. GOODE, Mr. AKIN, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. FORBES, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Act of 2003'. SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION. (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction `No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this section. Neither the Supreme Court nor any court created by Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 7 of title 1.'. (b) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: `1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'." http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/quer.../~c1088hZY2J:: I like checks and balances. They keep one branch of the government from making poor decisions, and they stop power mongers from trying to control the entire country. Republican's in Congress are now try to destroy a key part of federal checks and balances. The fact that Republicans created and passed this horrid bill in the House show that they know the Marriage Protection Act is unconstitutional and that they don't care. If this bill somehow gets past the Senate, it will set a prescedent that will basically invalidate Judicial oversight of Congress. Congress will simply affix this type of bill to anything it knows is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court will have no recourse. I can't see how this type of political mauvering is good for the country. /This is all assuming the bill passes the Senate (the Republicans might pull the same bullshit they pulled on healthcare and the Gitmo tribunal to get this billed passed). This is also assuming the Supreme Court doesn't tell Congress to go take a flying fuck and then rule heavily against both defense of marriage and this bill. __________________ 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."

07-22-2004, 08:25 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Great I'm all for it, I'm sick of activist judges, of either political creed, albeit in this cause Liberal/Dem's, taking away the option of the people on a twisted version of their own interpretation. This bill would stop any federal judge from making a ruling which would circumvent laws that were passed in the states, I couldn't be happier. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

07-22-2004, 08:35 PM	#3 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	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? In addendum, all the names you see up there backing this bill: Republicans. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...ort=S&Cong=108 Last edited by Journeyman; 07-22-2004 at 08:40 PM..

07-22-2004, 08:53 PM	#6 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Dred Scott is in a league of its own, this comes no where near it. State Court's can still find laws unconstitutional, all this does is protect DOMA, a law about respecting state law, from Federal interference. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

07-22-2004, 11:31 PM	#8 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	the link doesn't work

07-23-2004, 03:25 AM	#10 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yay, lets been dumbasses and pass a law that will be ruled unconstitutional the day after it gets signed. It's a nice gesture for our religious nutjob base at least. And that's about all there is to that.

07-23-2004, 08:59 AM	#11 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	If they would've passed something like this regarding segregation the country would be a very different place. Those judges were "activists" too. Our past is full of examples of "judicial activism". Many of which are shining moments in our history and examples of why our system is better than most. An "activist judge" is nothing more than a pair of conservative buzzwords. These judges were just doing their jobs. If doma isn't constitutional than their job is to label it as such and that's that. If doma is constitutional than this farce of a law wouldn't be necessary. Suprise suprise, and issue is being unnecessarily politicized in an election year. I don't know why the republicans feel it soo necessary to pander to the religious right since i think the rr has really no viable alternative when it comes to election day.

07-23-2004, 10:18 AM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yeah, Constitution Party is manned by a bunch of former Republicans who think the party doesn't pander enough to the whackjob base. I live in PA, and the Constitution party is going full force on us. York City has 3 full sized billboards that I know of advertising itself. They have a candidate on the ballot (Clymer) who is openly trying to steal enough votes from moderate Arlen Specter (r) to give Joe Hoeffel the win. And he can do it too. His reasoning is that he wants to keep Specter from chairing the Judicial committee at all costs. Even at the cost of a heathen Democrat. A rally by Clymer and Judge Roy Moore (of ten ton Ten Commandments fame) was attended by several thousand individuals in Lancaster County Pa. Lancaster has always been a stronghold for Republicans. The Constitution party is a real threat to them. Think what would happen if Roy Moore ran for President, and he is thinking it over. Bush would be royally screwed. Moore is a MOAB compared to Nader's Cherry bomb. The election will be over when Moore delivers several southern base states to Kerry. That's why they are pulling so hard right in an election year when the conventional wisdom is to run to the center.

07-23-2004, 05:58 PM	#15 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I had no idea. w00t! Go constitution party! Your ironic name and fringe ideology are just what the doctor ordered.