They did it. They really did it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Amazing. The House of Representatives today passed a bill stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases involving constitutional challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance. The bill's text and other information is available here. You can find out how your Congress Critter voted here.

This is pretty goddamn remarkable. Jurisdiction stripping bills are frequently introduced but almost never make it past the subcommittee stage. This one actually got approved by an entire house of Congress. Jesus, help us.

More appropriately, Jesus, help the state courts. If this abomination makes it through the Senate and passes constitutional muster in the federal courts, similar nutjob bills will fall like rain. Thing is, such bills don't even come close to ending litigation of controversial federal constitutional issues; they only dump the whole mess into the laps of state court judges. Fifty separate judicial systems potentially means a whole lot of divergence in results and rationales. Goodbye uniformity, hello cluster fuck.

[Petra]

Heh. To me, this is kinda good news. (At least from my perspective this very instant - it is subject to change, of course, 'cos I'm a girl. So there.)

Perhaps now, the US will finally begin the move to becoming several different countries.

Choose your state wisely, folks. Move to where you need to be now, before those state lines become national borders.

[Dingfod]

Why does Congress hate our freedoms?

[quiet bear]

what amazes me most is that they actually waste their time on this sort of thing. If you want to say the Pledge, say it. If you don't, then don't. What is so darn complicated about that?

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by quiet bear

what amazes me most is that they actually waste their time on this sort of thing. If you want to say the Pledge, say it. If you don't, then don't. What is so darn complicated about that?

If this law stands, they could pass a law mandating you say it and the courts couldn't even hear a lawsuit against that.

[quiet bear]

That's my point. Aren't there more pressing issues than this?

[Ari]

Um, how isn't this unconstitutional?

[Stephen Maturin]

Good question, Ari. Article III, Section I says that "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." (Emphasis added.) Jurisdiction stripping proponents claim that since the lower federal courts (U.S. district courts and circuit courts of appeals) depend on Congress for their very existence, Congress is free to limit their jurisdiction. A highly dubious conclusion, IMO, but there it is.

As for the Supreme Court, Article III, Section 2 provides that "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." (Emphasis added.) Jurisdiction strippers see this provision as an absolute grant of authority for Congress to limit the Court's appellate jurisdiction. The scope Congress's authority under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause is "unsettled," to put it mildly.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Jesus, help us.

These are desperate and strange times indeed.

[maddog]

I sent my critter an e-mail. I really did ask him why so many MC's hate our freedoms.

#868

[ImGod]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Good question, Ari. Article III, Section I says that "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." (Emphasis added.) Jurisdiction stripping proponents claim that since the lower federal courts (U.S. district courts and circuit courts of appeals) depend on Congress for their very existence, Congress is free to limit their jurisdiction. A highly dubious conclusion, IMO, but there it is.

As for the Supreme Court, Article III, Section 2 provides that "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." (Emphasis added.) Jurisdiction strippers see this provision as an absolute grant of authority for Congress to limit the Court's appellate jurisdiction. The scope Congress's authority under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause is "unsettled," to put it mildly.

So can people petition the Supreme Court directly on constitutional issues. If so, there may still be some recourse on the issue.

[wildernesse]

I will probably be corrected, but here's my shot until the real people show up.

The Supreme Court has two types of jurisdiction--original and appellate. Article II Section 2, which Stephen Maturin linked to in his previous post details the scope of both types. Original jurisdiction (meaning people can go directly to the Supreme Court, do not collect $200, etc.) is given to the Supreme Court only in the following cases: in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state is a party. Everything else falls under appellate jurisdiction, which Congress is attempting to limit in this matter.

And while public schools are government bodies, I don't think they would consitute being the state party necessary to fit under original jurisdiction.

[Stephen Maturin]

Your analysis looks right on the money, wildernesse. The Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction in plain ol' "federal question" cases, i.e., cases arising under the Constitution, federal statutes, etc. Thus, a litigant can't initiate a constitutional challenge to a school board's Pledge policy by filing suit in the Supreme Court. The only way to get such cases to SCOTUS is by appeal.

[D. Scarlatti]

You might be able to get at C.J. Roberts & Co. via the habeas route, but you'd probably have to kill somebody during an armed robbery in a death penalty state first (or molest a couple of children in Oklahoma).

[quiet bear]

The richest country in the world lets their own children go to bed hungry while they argue about stupid things like this.

[Annie]

Originally Posted by pepperspray

Perhaps now, the US will finally begin the move to becoming several different countries.

Choose your state wisely, folks. Move to where you need to be now, before those state lines become national borders.

"Divide?, and conquer" & fall is that what you want??

[Crumb]

I'm a loyal Cascadian.