House: Considering a resolution to FORBID courts the right to

[LittleApple81]

issue any rulings against DOMA. What are THESE JERKS DOING WHEN OUR COUNTRY'S SECURITY IS GOING DOWN THE DRAIN.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Uhhhh...

One part of the government carving out another ain't gonna happen. They may try, but it cannot happen under the constitution.

It's just a frother masturbatory fantasy, which says loads about the chuckleheads proposing this, and their knowledge of civics.

[Ediacara]

2. Well of course....

The courts would immediately rule that resolution a violation of the constitution....

It would be like Janklow pressuring the House to pass a resolution stating that the courts couldn't find him guilty of manslaughter before the trial!

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. Sounds like crossing out one of the checks and balances

to me. Unconstitutional.

[gratuitous]

4. Unconstitutional on its face

It's the courts' job to review legislation. No legislature can pass a law that is not subject to court review. All part of those pesky checks and balances that Republicans hate so much about the American system.

[Cannikin]

5. Related thread with article:

House to Vote on Stripping Federal Courts of Jurisdiction Over Gay Marriage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2040004

[Warpy]

6. Good luck to them and the Red Sox

The constitution was set up so that one branch could not limit the scope of another. That Congress was able to get away with their stupid mandatory sentencing guidleines for peaceful pot smokers, a case of gross negligence on the USSCs part, has not been lost on many of us.

I really don't think this one will pass muster with the USSC, though, since it's a direct assault on the courts, a direct limitation of their constitutionally mandated power. I doubt even gay-phobic Scalia will stand for that.

I also think a majority of people, Christian and unbeliever alike, are getting sick to death of pantywaist politicians who are willing to toss out everything that made the US what it has been in order to attack some minority group or some action that goes against their religion.

Even the fundies are getting disgusted.

[madrchsod]

7. google- d o m a

sponsored links-two anti-"gay" marriage sites-the second main listing is for a publisher of bondage magazines..sponsoring bondage? i guess they didn`t check the page they are sponsoring

[ieoeja]

8. Are mandatory sentences unconstitutional?

There is no question that the courts will rule this silliness unconstitutional. But by the same standard, is mandatory sentencing constitutional? It would be great if this led to mandatory sentencing being overturned as well.

[RoyGBiv]

9. Constitutional? Yes and No.

We need to take several leaps back for a minute and take a look at what's at stake with the attempt to pass such a law. As others have noted, this is far less about gay marriage than it is about our system of checks and balances as we currently define it. Conservatives in both parties have long despaired at the concept of judicial review, and this is what is under attack. But, whether such a law passes constitutional muster is a very complicated question.

Contrary to apparent popular opinion, the Constitution nowhere gives the Supreme Court explicit authority to rule on issues of constitutionality. (In the early days of the Republic, at least up through the Civil War, various factions argued variously that other branches held this power as much as the judicial branch. This war part of Andrew Jackson's reasoning in defying the Court.) This concept was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison as a bit of cleverly formulated obiter dictum. Some legal scholars argue that due to the nature of obiter dictum (not bearing directly on the legal question under review) it has no inherent standing as case law. Others, most others actually, disagree. Still, the question remains.

In fact, the Constitution doesn't demand anything like the judicial system we currently have. All that is required is that judicial functions be vested in a Supreme Court and whatever inferior courts Congress chooses to create. And, the Supreme Court itself, and its jurisdiction, was in fact created by Congress via the Judiciary Act of 1789. Repealing that act is simply a matter of passing a law that negates it. Certain totalitarian minded individuals -- and don't doubt for a minute that the Bush administration doesn't employ at least several of them -- can construct a reasonable legal argument that not even the Supreme Court is absolutely necessary, provided judicial functions are not carried out by any other branch. Without a Court, we simply wouldn't have judicial functions, and so-called "strict constructionists" would claim this is all perfectly legal.

My point here is not to assert that any of this reasoning has merit, but to make note of it and suggest we not simply file this away as so much nonsense. Strict constructionist conservatives have long wanted to do away with judicial review and have come to the brink of suggesting the court system itself be obliterated. Don't sell them or their goals short. We do so at our own peril.