"We The People" Act

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A Bill To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

"We The People" Act

This is an interesting piece of legislation that re-affirms the rights of the States over the Supreme Court, among other things.

 

[Annie]

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This is an interesting piece of legislation that re-affirms the rights of the States over the Supreme Court, among other things.

Sounds interesting, I'd like to read it, but:

Please resubmit your search

Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sounds interesting, I'd like to read it, but:

My mistake, the link is fixed in the original post.

 

[Annie]

"We The People" Act

This is an interesting piece of legislation that re-affirms the rights of the States over the Supreme Court, among other things.

Read it. I like the idea, but seems they are claiming that the SCOTUS may not invoke the Bill of Rights, which I think would be wrong. Am I missing something here, I'm NOT an attorney.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Read it. I like the idea, but seems they are claiming that the SCOTUS may not invoke the Bill of Rights, which I think would be wrong. Am I missing something here, I'm NOT an attorney.

You'd have to show me exactly where you're getting that idea from, because I'm not sure. Section 3 outlines what the SCOTUS would not be able to do.

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).

 

[Annie]

"We The People" Act

This is an interesting piece of legislation that re-affirms the rights of the States over the Supreme Court, among other things.

(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.

that is the one I've problems with, (the bolded).

Some states believe it or not, might have majorities that would institute a 'state church.' I don't like state defining family relations, dangerous ground, imo.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

that is the one I've problems with, (the bolded).

Some states believe it or not, might have majorities that would institute a 'state church.' I don't like state defining family relations, dangerous ground, imo.

Well the Ohio Bill of Rights states:

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

I'm sure all of the other state constitutions have similar sentiments. So regardless of whether there was some kind of official "state church" the people would still be free to attend any kind of church or religious organization that they chose.

 

[Annie]

Well the Ohio Bill of Rights states:



I'm sure all of the other state constitutions have similar sentiments. So regardless of whether there was some kind of official "state church" the people would still be free to attend any kind of church or religious organization that they chose.

If you don't see the problem here, I don't think there is a whole lot to discuss. I'm not being dismissive or trying to say anything bad, but for me, those are big problems, I don't trust the majority in this case.

 

[michiganFats]

I hope this is just a publicity stunt. This is a horrible idea. I don't like the idea of limiting the actions of a group of people just because some may be guilty of misconduct. The fact is, Congress already has the power to remove judges from the bench who are guilty of judicial misconduct. My advice to Congress is: If you think some judges are guilty of misconduct, get off your lazy asses, build a case against the individuals whom are guilty, and remove them from the bench. On a side note, I believe that Congress itself has been derelict in it's duty for years. They have not been an effective check or balance against the executive branch, and now some of these clowns want to weaken the judicial branch. That will leave us with one thing, an executive with no effective checks and balances standing in his way.

 

[Zoomie1980]

"We The People" Act

This is an interesting piece of legislation that re-affirms the rights of the States over the Supreme Court, among other things.

I'm a big states rights guy, but can't back this. The US Supreme court is "Supreme". We are never going to back to a loose Federation. We already fought the Civil War over that and the Unionists won.

 

[Tech_Esq]

"We The People" Act

This is an interesting piece of legislation that re-affirms the rights of the States over the Supreme Court, among other things.

I'm not a big fan of some parts of this particular bill. I do think that the 10th Amendment needs to be defended. The Supreme Court have already said they will not enforce the 10th Amendment because it is a "truism."

It is also true, as some have stated here that the Congress has failed to be a good check on the Executive. But, they have failed also to reign in an overweening judiciary. For the last 50+ years the judiciary has slowly usurped the power to legislate from the Congress and the Congress has done nothing to stem the tide.

It is fine that the Supreme Court retains the power to "say what the law is," we need to recognize that Chief Justice Marshall grabbed a significant power that was not provided in the Constitution when he took that right for the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. Now that the judiciary has, in many cases, decided that it is within their purview to create new laws from whole cloth, it is incumbent upon the legislature to act to check the judiciary's further grab for power.

 

[michiganFats]

Tech Esq, you make some very good points, and I agree with you. Some in the judiciary have been guilty of activism from the bench. My only concern is that Congress can already easily deal with this, I disagree with the blanket approach adopted by these individuals.

 

[Father Time]

Is it just me or does this spit in the face of the 14th?
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Is it just me or does this spit in the face of the 14th?
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm inclined to say no, but if you could specify exactly how it spits in the face of the 14th Amendment I might be able to address it.

 

[michiganFats]

My guess is that FatherTime was talking about due process being denied due to legislative restrictions on the courts.

 

[Father Time]

I thought it said something different for a second, never mind.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

I like it! Do it!

 

[Father Time]

"(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction"

So under this law, states can re-instate sodomy laws and tons of other useless unneeded laws that take away freedom.

 

[michiganFats]

"(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction"

So under this law, states can re-instate sodomy laws and tons of other useless unneeded laws that take away freedom.

Did I miss something? Seriously, I just thought this was a power grab by some irrelevant Congressional douchebags. I don't get the sex reference.

 

[michiganFats]

Allow me to rephrase, I don't get why the sex part is a major concern. The overall tone would effect way more than just some gay people.