American Wahabbis and the Ten Commandments

[vsp]

Maybe. It's a stretch, but the proponents of this bill claim that Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the right to restrict the judiciary's oversight of the Constitution, literally locking away entire classes of laws and saying "You _can't_ rule these to be unconstitutional, because we've taken away your right to do so." That's a Pat Robertson wet dream right there, as it would give states the ability to become miniature Christian-right fiefdoms without federal recourse.

Would it work? Which side (the legislature saying "No, you can't" or the courts saying "yes, we CAN") would be enforceable, and how? Hopefully, it'll never be tested.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by vsp

Maybe. It's a stretch, but the proponents of this bill claim that Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the right to restrict the judiciary's oversight of the Constitution, literally locking away entire classes of laws and saying "You _can't_ rule these to be unconstitutional, because we've taken away your right to do so."

Man, this could get seriously ugly. Maybe we need for it to.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Man, this could get seriously ugly. Maybe we need for it to.

I've been of the opinion, for a few years now, that it isn't nearly bad enough to get better yet.

It's also been a theory of mine that America as we know it is only a stepping stone on a still rather long and bumpy road.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by vsp

Maybe. It's a stretch, but the proponents of this bill claim that Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the right to restrict the judiciary's oversight of the Constitution, literally locking away entire classes of laws and saying "You _can't_ rule these to be unconstitutional, because we've taken away your right to do so." That's a Pat Robertson wet dream right there, as it would give states the ability to become miniature Christian-right fiefdoms without federal recourse.

Would it work? Which side (the legislature saying "No, you can't" or the courts saying "yes, we CAN") would be enforceable, and how? Hopefully, it'll never be tested.

Let's see

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

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;--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.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the 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.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

If Congress intends to say that displeasing members of Congress is bad behavior, than the courts will have every right to strike down the law. Just like a cop can't get fired for giving a speeding ticket to the mayor, a judge can't be fired for doing his or her job.

If they try this, then it will be the wake-up call for anybody who is anywhere to the left of rabidly stupid right-wing, which includes true conseratives, moderates, libertarians, liberals, .....

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by richlevy

If they try this, then it will be the wake-up call for anybody who is anywhere to the left of rabidly stupid right-wing, which includes true conseratives, moderates, libertarians, liberals, .....

That sound’s logical but what about when a 6.7 magnitude, shallow crust earthquake hits Seattle. 39,000 buildings destroyed, 130 simultaneously burning fires, 7700 dead or badly hurt, every major bridge down, hillsides sliding, a 10 foot wave through the waterfront and emergency services non-existent.
Or a tsunami hits any coast.
Or a dirty bomb in any city.
Now you have martial law in an ever expanding swath to prevent looting, clear the way for emergency services and prevent the spread of disease/contamination. For the children, damn it!!!
It’s a national crisis....unusual measures for unusual times.....we certainly need God’s help in this disaster.....these new laws and “adjustments” are only temporary until......damn it, we don’t have time to debate this......per order of Homeland Security.....if ya got a problem, write your congressman, now get on the damn truck.........cuff him, Dano.