How is this constitutional? (DOMA/House/Fed courts)

[Amarant]

If I heard CNN correctly the house is supposed to take up legislation baring the federal courts from reviewing DOMA.

How is this even REMOTELY constitutional?

Talk about destroying checks and balances. If the fed courts can be prohibited from hearing DOMA cases can they also be forbidden from hearing any other case the republicans in congress don't want them to hear? What about if they pass an act saying segregation is back and prohibit the courts from hearing it. There would be not a thing anyone could do about it.

This is truly outrageous. I'm sure they'll make sure to include this provision in patriot 2 as well.

[DebJ]

1. I don't see how this could be done without an amendment to

the Constitution.

[Massacure]

2. Supreme court will just slap them silly

While the state courts take these issues.

[Amarant]

3. It's a paradox

If the supreme court (a federal court) can not hear this case - how can they slap them down?

Also - the state courts can not review a federal law. ONLY a federal court can. Which they can't do because it would have been prohibited.

[Massacure]

5. Congress cannot define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Plus gay marriage is currently being decided by the state courts, if I recall correctly.

[tabasco]

8. To the contrary...

- Congress has express authority to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to a certain realm of purely federal cases.
- Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2.
- This is well-established law.

[tabasco]

6. That's incorrect.

- State courts have full power to review federal laws.
- The Congresss can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
- If the Congress took this jurisdiction away from the Supreme Court, state supreme courts would decide the constitutionality of the federal law, but the decision would only be binding in that state.

[Amarant]

7. State courts

can not strike down a federal law.

Otherwise when the civil rights acts were passed Alabama courts would have certainly brought them down.

"The Congresss can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court"

This totally eliminates checks and balances then. If the congress can limit the supreme court in such a way then they could essentially make the courts totally irrelevent. I seriously doubt the founders intended this.

[tabasco]

12. State courts can strike down a federal law, but not finally.

- At least as long as the USSC has jurisdiction. If a state court rules a federal statute unconstitutional, it move quickly to the federal courts. If the USSC upholds the law, the state court is overruled.
- If Congress removed a class of cases from USSC jurisdiction, the highest court of a state would be the final judge of the statute's constitutionality. The decision would only affect that state.
- State courts absolutely have power to pass on the constitutionality of federal laws and it happens all the time. But if a state highest court rules a federal statute unconstitutional, it normally goes directly to the USSC for a final ruling.

[Walt Starr]

4. It's unconstitutional on its face

Applicable portions:

Article III

Section 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

and this amendment

Amendment 11
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

they MAY be attempting to claim such powers under this section:

Article I

Section 8.

Clause 8. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

But that has no affect on the Supreme Court.

[Amarant]

9. Hmm

if you're right this will not be good.

God help us if they keep the congress and the white house in november, and start using this "power" to nullify the courts. We will be totally screwed.

[midwayer]

11. Not sure we have a Constitution

From: http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/waract.htm

Once an emergency is declared, there is no common law and the Constitution is automatically abolished. We are no longer under law. Law has been abolished. We are under a system of War Powers. Our stocks, bonds, houses, and land can be seized as Americans are considered enemies of the state. What we have is not ours under the War Powers given to the President who is the Commander-in-Chief of the military war machine.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution... for when this bill becomes a law, ...there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers." -Spoken by Congressman Beck in 1933 prior to the passage of the Farm Bill.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. It's not. nt

[tom_paine]

13. We DON'T HAVE a Constittuion. We have the New Totalitarianism

"Managed Democracy"

The only LAW is Imperial Will, Power and Intimidation.

All else is for show.

I am only half exagerrating, not really much at all, actually.

In 20 years, unless we stop the Busheviks NOW, reality will have matched the rhetoric.