Here is the legal brief in response:In a peculiar move best explained by election year posturing, the House of Representatives yesterday overwhelmingly approved a bill that would bar federal courts from reviewing controversies arising from the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance.” (H.R. 2389) To this old, crusty defender of the Constitution, this comes across as a fairly radical assault on the constitutional structure of the Republic, so destructive that it only could be the work of anarchists or (gasp!) liberals. Should Congress be defining by statute which constitutional issues are immune from judicial review? If so, do you have a little list of the constitutional controversies you think the federal courts should be barred from considering? How do you feel about a liberal Congress banning federal courts from reviewing gun control legislation?
Should I be concerned about this kind of nonsense, or do we all know it’s just Showtime? A House vote only gets legislation part-way to law. Do any of you think this should pass the Senate? Surely none of the Old Dominion’s conservative constitutionalists in the Congress participated in this silliness today. (Oops - just checked the Roll Call - not a pretty sight).
On the other hand, while this surely provides evidence that NoVA Scout is no constitutionalist, and probably not a Conservative, it also demonstrates that, his self-professed "credentials" to the contrary notwithstanding, he may well be not much of an attorney, either.NoVA Scout, you call this “a fairly radical assault on the constitutional structure of the Republic, so destructive that it only could be the work of anarchists or (gasp!) liberals.” You then ask “Should Congress be defining by statute which constitutional issues are immune from judicial review?”
Thank you for providing evidence that, as I have long suspected, your self-promoting “credentials” are nothing by empty puffery, particularly in light of your oh-so-jealously guarded anonymity.
Did you even go to law school? If you did, you should get a refund, because I don’t know of a Constitutional Law course or textbook (it appears on page 39 of my edition of Gunther) anywhere that does NOT teach Ex Parte McCardle, 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 506, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1869), in which the Supreme Court declined to decide the case, noting that its appellate jurisdiction had been removed by Congress, pursuant to its authority under Art. II, sec. 2, of the Constitution, which limits the Supremes’ appellate jurisidiction, “both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
It’s right there, in black and white. It’s wonderful that the Congress is exercising one of its clearly-defined powers to limit judicial tyranny. In your vicious and obviously ill-informed criticism, you have demonstrated that you are neither a “crusty defender of the Constitution,” nor a “Conservative,” but rather, a reactionary Liberal (as opposed to “liberal”).
Now, if someone could only remind Congress of those other, clearly-defined LIMITS on its power….
Given TC's history, maybe he's his own "Amen!" chorus, too.
4 comments:
You may want to direct your reader(s) to the comment and thread at tooconservative.com so they have the context. It seems you left out some relevant details. Thanks for the age estimate. At my age, anything under 55 is a moral victory. However, any estimate under 50 simply calls into question the perceptions of the estimator.
I was referring to behavior, not chronological age, "NoVA Scout."
TC shows rank idiocy, indeed. Jurisdiction of the federal courts can be prescribed and limited by Congressional legislation.
Well, Anon 8:28, until he decided to play his intellectualoid elitest games, he raises some points with some authorities with which I was not familiar. But Ex Parte McCardle is the leading case, and one to which anyone discussing Congress' authority on this issue should at least pay lip service. That "NoVA Scout" doesn't even allude to it, and suggests that Congress' action is outrageous and unconstitutional, simply demonstrates his lack of desire to provoke a serious discussion, in lieu of slamming Republicans. And I've been told that such was my province.
Post a Comment