Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Article 3
Pat Buchanan says on Terry Gross's Fresh Air that under Article 3 of the US Constitution the Congress has the right to restrict what laws the judiciary can rule on. I just read Article 3 and I can see nothing in there that says that. Can anyone shed any light on that?
Comments:
Curtis, he must be referring to this:
"Clause 2: 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. "
A case can be made that except for those cases in the first sentence, the Congress may make exceptions to the Supreme Courts jurisdiction.
How do you interpret this clause?
Averroes
"Clause 2: 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. "
A case can be made that except for those cases in the first sentence, the Congress may make exceptions to the Supreme Courts jurisdiction.
How do you interpret this clause?
Averroes
# posted by 
: 4:12 PM
: 4:12 PM
Sorry Averroes, I was terribly vague in the post.
Mr. Buchanan was stating that the Congress should restrict interpreting laws that regulate marriage, under the powers given to it in Article III. Assuming any challenge to a marriage law passed by Congress would involve the state, the article says "original jurisdiction" belongs to the Supreme Court.
No?
Mr. Buchanan was stating that the Congress should restrict interpreting laws that regulate marriage, under the powers given to it in Article III. Assuming any challenge to a marriage law passed by Congress would involve the state, the article says "original jurisdiction" belongs to the Supreme Court.
No?
Maybe that's too broad. After all, normal criminal cases are "State of oregon v Averroes" or some such. i suppose you could say that the state is a party and the state courts have no juridiction. I think this is not settled law.
To me, this is an attempt to make marriage purely a matter of state jurisdiction.
Some day, our kids will look at this bit of history and laugh. MKy hope is that we get government out of the marriage business entirely, to a realm of the secular recognition of partnerships. let the religious take care of marriage according to their beliefs.
But, for the present, we aren't there yet. If Buchanan's proposal becomes law, and the defense of marriage act stays in existence, it will actually protect states who offer marriage for non-traditional couples. It means, for instance, that the power of the federal government could not be brought to bear on a particular state, nor that of the court.
As a rule of thumb, anything which lessens the power of the federal government is a good thing.
Averroes
Post a Comment
To me, this is an attempt to make marriage purely a matter of state jurisdiction.
Some day, our kids will look at this bit of history and laugh. MKy hope is that we get government out of the marriage business entirely, to a realm of the secular recognition of partnerships. let the religious take care of marriage according to their beliefs.
But, for the present, we aren't there yet. If Buchanan's proposal becomes law, and the defense of marriage act stays in existence, it will actually protect states who offer marriage for non-traditional couples. It means, for instance, that the power of the federal government could not be brought to bear on a particular state, nor that of the court.
As a rule of thumb, anything which lessens the power of the federal government is a good thing.
Averroes
# posted by : 7:30 PM
: 7:30 PM
