Ron Paul's We the People Act

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Oct 26, 2007.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I support Ron Paul's We the People Act. I submit that it was never the intentions of our nation's Founders that issues such as abortion, who can or cannot get married, and religious displays should be shanghaied by the federal courts and removed from the purview of the people's elected representatives in the respective states.

    We the People Act (Introduced in House)


    HR 300 IH
    110th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. R. 300
    To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    January 5, 2007


    Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. POE, and Mr. JONES of North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
    A BILL
    To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
    • Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


    • This Act may be cited as `We the People Act'.
    SEC. 2. FINDINGS.


    • The Congress finds the following:
      • (1) Article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States vests the judicial power of the United States in `one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'.
      • (2) Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States give Congress the power to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts.
      • (3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.
      • (4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)).
      • (5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.
      • (6) Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees each State a republican form of government.
      • (7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
      • (8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.
      • (9) Even supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's decisions overturning the abortion laws of all 50 States are constitutionally flawed (e.g. Ely, `The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade' 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973)).
      • (10) Several members of the Supreme Court have admitted that the Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction is indefensible (e.g. Zelamn v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 688 (2002) (Souter, J., dissenting); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 861 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 399, (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring); and Committee for Public Ed. And Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 671 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
      • (11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
    SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.


    • The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
      • (1) shall not adjudicate--
        • (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
        • (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
        • (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
      • (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
    SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.


    • The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--
      • (1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and
      • (2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.
    SEC. 5. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES.


    • Any party or intervener in any matter before any Federal court, including the Supreme Court, may challenge the jurisdiction of the court under section 3 or 4 during any proceeding or appeal relating to that matter.
    SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.


    • A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.
    SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.


    • Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.
     
  2. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Such a piece of legislation would likely be declared unconstitutional by the courts. :laugh:

    Something like this should require a constitutional amendment. There goes any chance of my voting for Paul. He was the only Republican who I would have considered out of this field.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only way that the U.S. Supreme Court could declare this act if it became law unconstitutional would be to declare that the U.S. constitution itself is unconstitutional.
     
  4. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then isn't this legislation redundant and unnecessary? If the courts can ignore (and do ignore) the Constitution, won't they simply ignore this as well?
     
  5. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually no. If this were a Constitutional Amendment, that would be right. Otherwise, it's just another piece of legislation subject to judicial review itself.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then does that mean that these words I have bolded in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. constitution have no meaning in practical terms:

    "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."
     

Share This Page

Loading...