Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Could you show me where Nixon testified before Congress?Nixon could not have perjured himself if he had not been testifying under oath after Congress subpoenaed him.
...
This I'd like to see. Links would be nice.
Thanks in advance!
We are all waiting for Peg and QWB to come up with something substantiative. Their belief is not evidence. Come on, guys, stay to the point, please, and answer clearly, concisely, and conclusively.
You know, I've been dabbling into this Jurisdiction Stripping thing, and it has been revealing.
It seems like this is part of the ne0conservative plan; from a little look back in the records of the pre-2006 and 2006 congress', when the pubs held the majority.
In my research, I saw this reference to the "Pornography Jurisdiction Act" put out by Rep. Cannon. [2006]
Following it up, it never became law, of course. Never even made it past committee. [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5528]U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, pitched his "Pornography Jurisdiction Act" as a way to keep federal courts from hearing challenges to state laws regulating sexually explicit material.
His proposal would ban federal courts from hearing or deciding "a question of whether a state pornography law imposes a constitutionally invalid restriction on the freedom of expression."
"Federal courts have been creating a dangerous climate for our children by overturning important decisions by state courts to restrict pornography consumption and distribution within their borders," Cannon said in a statement. "My legislation simply lets states decide for themselves how they tackle this problem."
Read more: Cannon tries to ban federal courts from hearing state porn cases
The article goes on to discuss the issue at large:Several resolutions are pending in Congress that would take away the federal court system's jurisdiction over controversial social issues, including government-sanctioned prayer, the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, using "In God We Trust" as the national motto and provisions barring homosexuals from being married.
There is language in the Constitution discussing Congress' ability to set limits on the Supreme Court.
Article III, Section 2 says: "In all 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."
But it's not quite that clear, said Glenn C. Smith, a Supreme Court expert and law professor at the California Western School of Law in San Diego.
"The validity is up for grabs," he said. "If it's an intrusion on the court's independence, it's one that at least arguably is justified by the words of the document."
Even so, there's a body of scholarship that says imposing a restriction in order to influence the outcome of a case or group of cases is an abuse of the system.
"Speaking for myself, jurisdiction stripping which seeks to erode or water down constitutional rights is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution," Smith said. "I'm in good company, but there's a fair amount of speculation involved."
A list of all the bills before Congress at the time that tried to do the similar things:*HR1070, Constitution Restoration Act of 2005: Would prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing a government official or agent's "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in April 2005.
*HR1100, Marriage Protection Act of 2005: Seeks to keep federal courts and the Supreme Court from reviewing cases related to Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in April 2005.
*HR2389, Pledge Protection Act of 2005: The Supreme Court and federal courts would have no jurisdiction in cases interpreting the validity of Pledge of Allegiance. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in June 2005.
* HR4364, Public Prayer Protection Act: The Supreme Court could not review any "establishment of religion" cases involving public prayer by a government agency, officer or agent. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in February.
*HR4379, We the People Act: No federal court could review a state's laws or regulations relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; any claim based on the right of privacy; and any equal protection claim involving the right of same-sex couples to get married. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in February.
*HR4576, Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties Act: Federal courts could not rule on cases involving Ten Commandments displays, the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Motto. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in February.Not a single one of these even made it out of Committee, (in a Republican majority!) with the exception of the Pledge Protection Act of 2005:. This was voted on in the House and passed, then languished in the Judiciary Committee.
In reviewing the text, and the content of these proposed laws, I ask the readers: Notice any particular theme in what they are gunning for?;
that is, the kinds of laws they want these "jurisdiction stripping" bills applied?
Congress has a valid Constitutional right to jurisdiction strip the Court of oversight of a particular case or set of cases. Of course, the Court has the right to rule Congressional legisation unconstitutional. Thus, jurisdiction stripping appears to be a moot point. If Congress tries to flip the Court off, the Court simply knocks the Congress on its ass. The Congress could react with impeachment and trial. Would be interesting.
It also runs counter to the doctrine of the rule of law and judicial review."Speaking for myself, jurisdiction stripping which seeks to erode or water down constitutional rights is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution," Smith said. "I'm in good company, but there's a fair amount of speculation involved."
The federal courts would be the same courts that would be deciding whether the provision of jurisdiction-stripping is constitutional or not.
In a 7-to-2 decision...the Court held that the individual congressmen lacked proper Article III standing to maintain their suit. The Court explained that the congressmen failed to show how the allegedly unconstitutional Act resulted in their personal injury, since it applied to the entire institution of Congress. Moreover, the congressmen based their claim on a loss of political power rather then a demonstration of how the Act violated one of their particularized legally protected interests. The Court concluded that, having failed to meet both of these standing requirements, the congressmen did not present the Court with a case-or-controversy over which it had jurisdiction.
Raines v. Byrd | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Yup.
The federal courts would be the same courts that would be deciding whether the provision of jurisdiction-stripping is constitutional or not.
Circle me wagons!
It also runs counter to the doctrine of the rule of law and judicial review."Speaking for myself, jurisdiction stripping which seeks to erode or water down constitutional rights is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution," Smith said. "I'm in good company, but there's a fair amount of speculation involved."
The federal courts would be the same courts that would be deciding whether the provision of jurisdiction-stripping is constitutional or not.
Or do nothing at all.
If passed the courts could simply ignore the stripping.
That would put the ball in Congress court to find standing to sue, which would be highly unlikely per Raines v. Byrd (1997):
In a 7-to-2 decision...the Court held that the individual congressmen lacked proper Article III standing to maintain their suit. The Court explained that the congressmen failed to show how the allegedly unconstitutional Act resulted in their personal injury, since it applied to the entire institution of Congress. Moreover, the congressmen based their claim on a loss of political power rather then a demonstration of how the Act violated one of their particularized legally protected interests. The Court concluded that, having failed to meet both of these standing requirements, the congressmen did not present the Court with a case-or-controversy over which it had jurisdiction.
Raines v. Byrd | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
The same would be true if Congress attempted to limit the courts jurisdiction over a given matter and the courts continued to review the restricted cases anyway; Congress has no standing to sue as an entire institution. Just as suits against the Executive Branch have failed to gain standing, suits against the Judicial Branch would fail for the same reason.
One does not have to disprove a claim for which no evidence has been presented. The lack of evidence itself proves that the claim has no basis.
My advice would be, don't dig yourself in any deeper than you already are.
Big words from little people still sound squeaky.
I've provided linkage etc for what was originally an innocuous comment. But, since some people seem determined to endure a figurative ass kicking, I'm just playing the game they started.
Here are the options:
Prove me wrong: I've provided links. If you can prove me wrong then we all learn something.
Admit you are wrong: Again, I've provided links. If you read them and realise that 'holy shit he's right'...... and then say so, you gain good karma and great juju.
Walk away: You look like a punk for about eight seconds and then everyone moves on to the next thread.
A more holistic approach looks to other constitutional rights and
provisions, noting that any jurisdiction-stripping bill must be constitutionally
valid not only under Article III, but under other constitutional
provisions as well. For example, it is obvious that a bill taking federal
jurisdiction away from a case filed by any member of a particular race
would be unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. Similarly,
even in less extreme cases, Congresss ability to limit the jurisdiction
of federal courts must comply with due process concerns, among
other constitutional protections. Supreme Court precedent supports
this argument: in United States v. Klein, the Court struck down a jurisdiction-
stripping law because the law abridged the Presidents pardon
power under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Some scholars therefore contend that congressional curtailment
of federal court jurisdiction solely for substantive political issues would
run afoul of one or more constitutional provisions, arguing, for example,
that the jurisdictional law would be enacted with a motive to
cause an unconstitutional result.
http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/l...153/issue5/Weiman153U.Pa.L.Rev.1677(2005).pdf
'Gingrich would arrest judges," scream the headlines. You'd think he'd proposed some crazy, unconstitutional crackdown on federal judges. Instead,
Newt Gingrich's position paper, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution," has a set of controversial but thoughtful proposals including:
1. calling judges before Congress to explain their decisions,
2. impeaching judges or
3. eliminating courts that consistently get the Constitution wrong, and
4. limiting the applicability of Supreme Court decisions that distort the Constitution.
]
The above absurdities are all based on the necessity of accepting the absolute premise that a particular conservative interpretation of the Constitution is the 'right' interpretation.
Very convenient if you're in that particular group of conservatives who agree with that premise.
We are all waiting for Peg and QWB to come up with something substantiative. Their belief is not evidence. Come on, guys, stay to the point, please, and answer clearly, concisely, and conclusively.
Most of us are not waiting for any such thing because we already read the thread. If you go back and read my posts you will see specific references to Congress impeaching judges for no other reason than they handed down the wrong decision. Roosevelt was so pissed at the Supreme Court shooting down his plans to save the world he packed the court in order to get his New Deal legislation through. I am pretty sure you are one of the statist idiots that point to that as a perfect example of how the government is supposed to work, so you should have no problem with Newt doing essentially the same thing.
By the way, I loved the joke in your post about staying on point and answering clearly, rdean does it better though.
"I consider the Federal Judiciary system to be the greatest single threat to individual freedom and liberty in the United States today, and I'm going to take off the gloves in talking about these people.
It is perfectly obvious from the left-wing liberal press and from the left-wing law journals that what the court is saying behind all the jargon is that they don't like our form of government . . . .
It has reached the point where one may no longer look to judicial decisions to determine what the court may do. However, it is possible to predict with accuracy the nature of the opinions to be rendered. One may find the answer in the Communist Manifesto. The Communists are dedicated to the overthrow of our form of government. They are dedicated to the destruction of the concept of private property. They are dedicated to the object of destroying religion as the basis of moral and ethical values . . .
We are all waiting for Peg and QWB to come up with something substantiative. Their belief is not evidence. Come on, guys, stay to the point, please, and answer clearly, concisely, and conclusively.
Congress has a valid Constitutional right to jurisdiction strip the Court of oversight of a particular case or set of cases. I see you found the pertinent posts. Good for you. You will soon get a cool point for public acknowledgement as well.
Of course, the Court has the right to rule Congressional legisation unconstitutional. Not if the ability to hear the case was stripped out. It would take a different approach. Don't you love how an innocuous comment causes a minor shitstorm?
Thus, jurisdiction stripping appears to be a moot point. If Congress tries to flip the Court off, the Court simply knocks the Congress on its ass. The Congress could react with impeachment and trial. Would be interesting.
I missed the link where you proved that Congress can pass laws that are exempt from judicial review.
