Poll: Do you respect the Supreme Court?

Protecting and defending the US Constitution is not the sole responsibility of the SCOTUS, but of everyone invloved with the political process in our Constitutional Republic, every member of Congress, the POTUS and every registered voter who chooses to be a part of this political process. In Florida and many other states by registering to vote you are taking an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. So another check on the courts is the ability of the other two branches of government to ignore or challange any rulings by the SCOTUS that are unconstitutional. The SCOTUS can't enforce their decisions, and the state and federal executive branches of government can refuse to enforce any rulings that are uncostitutional.

Over the last 200 years, Congress has exercised this authority to except certain areas from the jurisdiction of the federal court system. In Turner vs. Bank of North America 4 Dall. (4 U.S.,8(1799)),the Supreme Court concluded that the federal courts derive their judicial power from Congress, not the Constitution.

In Cary vs. Curtis 3 How, (44 U.S.), 236 (1845), a statute made final the decision of the secretary of the Treasury in certain tax deductions. The statute was challenged as an unconstitutional deprivation of the judicial power of the courts. The Supreme Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the federal courts (inferior to the Supreme Court) was in the sole power of Congress.

In Sheldon vs. Sill 8 How (49 U.S. 441 (1850)), involved the validity of the assignee clause of the Judicial Act of 1789 restricting such action to establish federal court jurisdictions. The Supreme Court sustained the power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts.

In Ex Parte McCardle 6 Wall. (73 U.S.) 318 (1868), the Supreme Court accepted review on certiorari of a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the circuit court. Congress, fearful the Supreme Court would honor the writ, passed a law repealing the act which authorized the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

In Lauf vs. E.G. Shinner & Co. 303 U.S. 323, 330 (1938), the Supreme Court upheld the power of Congress to define and limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States in the form restrictions on the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes under the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932.

In Lockerty v. Phillips 319 U.S. 182 (1943), Congress provided for a special court to appeal price control decisions under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The Supreme Court sustained this restriction.

One of the outstanding Constitutional scholars in the Senate is Robert Byrd, West Virginia Democrat. In 1979, in order to once again allow voluntary prayer in public schools, he introduced a law to except this subject from the federal court system under Article III, 2.2. Unfortunately, it was not enacted into law.

In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Sen. Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, used the exception authority of Article III, 2.2 in order to cut some timber in South Dakota.

Source: Washington Times

I believe it is the duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion and state sodomy laws in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2. I also support legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

To add to FTR's list of educational resources:

A View of the Constitution of the United States of America by William Rawle, L.L.D.

This is the book that was used in the military academies uo until the War Between the States. Originally published in 1825, this is one of the most valuable books to have in discovering the intent of the framers and what the Constitution truly means.

Lex, Rex by Rev. Samuel Rutherford

Written in 1644, but necessary for today. Lex Rex speaks against absolute and passive obedience to tyrants and was one of the most read books in America prior to the War for American Independence.

Christianity and the Constitution by Dr. John Eidsmoe

I also highly recomend the Institute on the Constitution, a course of studies consisting of twelve sessions. http://www.iotconline.com/

[ December 31, 2005, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: JGrubbs ]

 

JG,

Wow. Sir, I consider myself blown away (for now ) on the exceptions clause debate. My biggest argument on the other side is that Hamilton did not mention it in any of his Federalist papers as a check on the judicial power. I've got and have partially read an unpublished article by Eidsmoe on the subject, though, that presents excellent arguments to support your position.

BTW, thanks for mentioning Lex Rex. One of my Poli Sci professors mentioned it and I've wanted to find a copy of it but had mostly forgotten about it. It's one of those that I hope Liberty Fund will find its way to publish one of these days.

Bunyon may hate me for the added reading list but a few others:

View of the Constitution of the United States by St. George Tucker, a defense of the document by a Jeffersonian of the period.

New Views of the Constitution of the United States by John Taylor of Caroline, to whom and which Madison was referring in the earlier quote offered.

Creating the Bill of Rights which is the debates of the First Congress on the Bill of Rights as they were framed.

God and Man in the Law by Robert Lowry Clinton, the same one who offered the theory of judicial review I mentioned earlier.

Confronting the Constitution, edited by Allan Bloom, a collection of essays examining the challenges presented by utilitarianism, historicism, Marxism, Freudianism, pragmatism, existentialism, etc.

Selected Writings on the Constitution and Federalism: The Founders Design by Raoul Berger an awesome legal scholar of the Constitution and original intent.

Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution by M. E. Bradford

Original Meanings by Jack Rakove, who argues against original intent but does so by looking back to the Founders to support that argument. I disagree with him but respect the fact that he goes back to original sources to support his argument against originalism.

Interpreting the Constitution: The Debate over Original Intent, edited by Rakove, a collection of essays.

The Constitution in Congress on the First Congress.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, newly published, and edited by Reagan's Attorney General, Ed Meese, a clause by clause examination of the Constitution.

The Founders Constitution, published by University of Chicago Press and Liberty Fund, which is, IMO, the absolute best reference work on the Constitution, a five-volume, oversized paperback clause-by-clause collection of contemporaneous writings on the Constitution. Simply awestome.

[ December 31, 2005, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

Bunyon,

I did understand that, which is why I said "for all practical purposes. I don't think it was meant to be that way, but is this what has happened?

Put that way, I would agree. I just had a semantical disagreement with phrasing it as "The Constitution is" what anyone in particular says it is. What SCOTUS says it is carries weight under the law, but they may be wrong. We agree.

I hope that between JG and me, we haven't overloaded you. I appreciate JG's list, too, and have added both Rutherford and Rawle to my own books to read; unfortunately, Rawle's is not available economically for purchase right now.

 

Jesus told the woman taken in adultery, 'Go, and sin no more. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill' and, 'Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord; and the fruit of the womb His reward.' By making contraceptives available and abortions legal, the leaders of our country have made it possible for people to continue in sin, to be as promiscuous as they want.

Acts 5:29 We ought to obey God rather than man.

Sad.

 

In particular reason there that you used 1967? Roe v. Wade wasn't decided until 1973. In 1967, Colorado became the first state to reform its abortion law based on the ALI recommendation. The new Colorado statute permitted abortions if the pregnant woman's life or physical or mental health were endangered, if the fetus would be born with a severe physical or mental defect, or if the pregnancy had resulted from rape or incest. Other states began to follow suit, and by 1972, 13 states had so-called ALI statutes. Meanwhile, four states repealed their antiabortion laws completely, substituting statutes permitting abortions that were judged to be necessary by a woman and her Roe,abortion reform legislation had been introduced in all but five states.

The trend between 1967 and 1973 was moving to less restrictions on abortion...Roe v. Wade just sped the transition along.

 

IOTC has Lex Rex for $15:
http://shop.1asecure.com/prod.cfm?ProdID=227273&StID=2396

You can also get Rawle's book from IOTC for $15:
http://shop.1asecure.com/prod.cfm?ProdID=179928&StID=2396

You would probably also enjoy IOTC's free quarterly magazine, The Liberty Forum. Each issue addresses one significant Constitutional issue that will guide the fight to restore our Constitutional Republic.

http://www.iotconline.com/index.php?id=61

 

JG,

Thanks VERY much. I just ordered Lex Rex Rex and will definitely get the Rawle book, later. Liberty Fund has another you might be interested in, The Struggle for Sovereignty, a collection of 17th century English political tracts, mostly on the divine right of kings, which includes some from both sides. They also have Algernon Sidney's A Discourse on Government.

 

BTW, JG, I noticed they have a book on impeachment by David Barton. One I recommend is Impeachment by Raoul Berger, an excellent historical study.

 

Thanks! I will have to look that one up! It sounds like we could combine to create a great Constitutional library!

Have a Happy New Year!

 

I hope you'll look up The Founders Constitution in the Liberty Fund website. Actually, it is also available online. You'll love it.

I also need to check into IOTC. I saw John Eidsmoe back in April at a conference and he had some of their stuff on his table in the hallway outside.

Have a Happy New Year's!

 

I found The Founders Constitution online, I have added it to my bookmarks!

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/

Another great book that I have in my library, that I belive should be in everyone's library is The Patriot's Handbook, I believe you can find that on the IOTC site as well.

The first step in restoring our Constitutional Republic is educating every US citizen we can, the government schools have done a great job of dumbing everyone down over the years, it's our duty to educate everyone about the Constitution and the Constitutional Republic that our founders intended!

 

Man, I wish I would have had this list before Christimas. I could have added some of the matirial to my Christmas list.

 

There is a story I found tonight in the Winter 2005 issue of Liberty Forum by David K. Kyle called "The Imbalance of Justice in America". In this article Mr. Kyle quotes Federalist 78, Blackstone's Commentaries and Sir Edward Cooke 1602 Reports. He is looking at the Massachusetts Goodridge case and the issue of federal courts trying to force states to legalize homosexual marriages. In this article he comes to the same conclusion that I did previously in this thread:

"When judges violate their oaths and decide to make laws as they are doing now, it is the duty of the legislative and executive branches to exercise their check on that wayward branch of government and not only ignore the illegal ruling but to openly challenge the court. This also does not apply only to the same sex marriage issue but to all instances where the court exceeds its constitutional authority."

"If the legislative and executive branches continue to follow the illegal rulings of the courts it is the duty of the citizens to elect representatives that will act according to their oaths and remove these wayward judges from the bench."

Source: Liberty Forum, Winter 2005, pp.8,10

 

Bunyon,

I know what you mean. Fortunately, I had The Heritage Guide to the Constitution on my Christmas list.

JG,

Amen. I was very troubled with the Goodridge decision as with SCOTUS's Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down homosexual sodomy laws. I just hope that Massachusetts' voters do what you suggested since their Constitutional amendment process has made overturning that decision extremely difficult. BTW, Goodridge is also why I strongly favor a Federal Marriage Amendment.

 

The proper thing to do would have been for both the legislative and executive branches of the Massachusetts' government to challenge the federal court on this issue. Instead they simply bowed down to the courts decision.

I wish more state governments were willing to stand up to the courts. Tell the courts to try to enforce their rulings themselves, because the states will not enforce any ruling that goes against the Constitution.

I oppose the FMA, I think this is something that should be taken care of with state constitution amendments. I don't like the idea of giving the federal government the power to define marriage.

 

But Goodridge wasn't a federal court decision, it was a state court deciding the issue under the Massachusetts Constitution, though they also relied on L v. T in their reasoning.

I oppose the FMA, I think this is something that should be taken care of with state constitution amendments. I don't like the idea of giving the federal government the power to define marriage.

While I understand and sympathize with your position, as someone who also believes strongly in federalism, I believe that marriage is such a central institution to the preservation of society, it is worthy of a U.S. Constitutional amendment, that would alter the federalist model only in that particular. And it doesn't give the federal government the power to define marriage--as a Constitutional amendment it gives the people of the states, through their legislatures, that power, in the process of ratifying such an amendment.

 

Then, I must correct my previous post:

The proper thing to do would have been for both the legislative and executive branches of the Massachusetts' government to challenge the state court on this issue.

I could see possibly looking to using the FMA if the states couldn't get marriage amendments passed in their states, but if they couldn't do that, would they be able to pass a federal marrage amendment?

The FMA should only be a last resort, the state amendments should be looked at first. As of April, 2005, 18 states have passed marriage protection amendments. The newest is Kansas on April 5, when voters approved a marriage amendment by 70% to 30%. There are other states that will be voting on these amendments in 2006 and 2008.

I believe the FMA was a smokescreen and will never pass, and the administration knew that, they used it to scare and attract conservative Christian voters, and never brought it up again after winning the election.

 

Another reason I support a Federal Marriage Amendment is that it would give the Defense of Marriage Act some Constitutional teeth. Although I think it passes Constitutional muster under the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit clasue, this has been seriously questioned and I think that an FMA would eliminate that argument. While I believe that state Constitutional amendments should have the same effect within their states, a Federal Marriage Amendment will avoid a SCOTUS decision down the road, relying on Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans that such amendments are rooted in an "animus" against homosexuality (Romer's basis for tossing out a Constitutional amendment by the people of Colorado) and therefore unconstitutional.

I believe the FMA was a smokescreen and will never pass, and the administration knew that, they used it to scare and attract conservative Christian voters, and never brought it up again after winning the election.

You know, as much as I would like to believe that is unfair cynicism, I'm afraid you're probably right.

 

I too believe the DMOA passes Constitutional muster under the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit clasue, I believe that it has enough "Constitutional teeth" on it's own, and that if any court including the SCOTUS ever tries to strike down the DMOA, then that would be the perfect opportunity for the legislative and executive branches of both the state and federal government to publicly fight the courts. I believe it's going to take a public fight to get the courts back in line, but I am afraid we have too many cowards in the legislative and executive branches who are afraid of fighting, ignoring or challenging the courts. Yes, doing so would turn our political system upside down in certain areas, but that is the type of reform we need!

This lack of action by the legislative and executive branches is why I say in regards to the OP of this thread that you can't put all the blame on the SCOTUS. The other two branches have allowed them to get away with this, by refusing to hold true to their oath to protect and defend the US Constitution themselves.

 

Elective partial birth abortions are illegal. The notion that partial birth abortions are electively legal is a myth of the religious right fostered for the purpose of raising funds for and interest in the anti-abortion position. IMO, it is not necessary to adhere to myth to be against elective abortions for moral reasons, whish is my personal position, btw.