NationStates Jolt Archive

And so it begins.....


House OKs Bill Limiting Pledge Rulings

Thursday, September 23, 2004

WASHINGTON — The House passed a bill Thursday that would prevent the Supreme Court (search) from ruling on whether the words "under God" should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance (search).

In a politically and emotionally charged debate, Democrats said majority Republicans in the chamber were debasing the Constitution in order to force a vote that could hurt Democrats in the election.

Supporters insisted that Congress has always had authority to limit federal court jurisdiction, and the legislation is needed to protect an affirmation of religion that is part of the national heritage.

The bill, which was passed 247-173, would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases involving the pledge and its recitation and would prevent federal courts from striking the words "under God" from the pledge.

ah, the seperation of powers

Interesting.. didnt know that the legislative in a democracy can now dictate the judicative what it may or may not judge about...

Meh. Checks and balances at work. The Judicial Branch can say what the Legislative Branch and Executive Branches cannot do, and apparently in turn the Legislative can put some minor limits on the Judicial Branch to keep it from becoming a governing body not reflective of the people.

Meh. Checks and balances at work. The Judicial Branch can say what the Legislative Branch and Executive Branches cannot do, and apparently in turn the Legislative can put some minor limits on the Judicial Branch to keep it from becoming a governing body not reflective of the people.

ah, i see. one branch of government declaring that another branch shall not find its actions unconstitutional (by declaring that they cannot be reviewed) is checks and balances at work, and not some sort of naked power grab. makes sense to me.

It was obviously done to prevent more stupid lawsuits that would tie up the courts for years and solve nothing....so what.

This won't fly...

It will pass the Senate overwhelmingly.

It will pass the Senate overwhelmingly.
Just like the anti-gay marriage amendment eh.

It won't be debated. Even John Kerry was reportedly "fuming" when he couldn't be at the normally empty Senate morning ceremony to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the rest of his friends from work (Newsweek, issue unknown)...

It will pass the Senate overwhelmingly.
And be struck down by the courts in a heartbeat. The USSC won't even bother to hear this.

And be struck down by the courts in a heartbeat. The USSC won't even bother to hear this.
On what grounds? Because it is clearly stated in the consitution that the legislature has the power to determine the jurisdiction of the judiciary, it is obviously an unconsitutional law?

On what grounds? Because it is clearly stated in the consitution that the legislature has the power to determine the jurisdiction of the judiciary, it is obviously an unconsitutional law?
Article III:
Section 2.

Clause 1: The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

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.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

In short: The USSC has unrevokable power over any case that has to do with the Constitution.

Article III:
Section 2.

Clause 1: The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

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.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

In short: The USSC has unrevokable power over any case that has to do with the Constitution.
Yep, but no other court (which is what this bill is about). From Section 1 of the same article "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." The restriction on the USSC is that USSC has no appellate jurisdiction over pledge cases (hmm, doesn't clause 2 you cite say "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", it retains its original jurisdction. No violation of the original jurisdiction of the USSC, and the consituttion expressly permits the legislature to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the USSC.

the text of the bill says: legalese "No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation." legalese.

Writ of Certiorari from a state supreme court might do the trick...and that last bit about forbiding the USSC from having appellate jurisdiction won't fly...

Writ of Certiorari from a state supreme court might do the trick...and that last bit about forbiding the USSC from having appellate jurisdiction won't fly...
Despite the fact that the constitution specifically mentions it? Once again I refer you to your citation of the US consitution : Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2, "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." (emphasis mine)

Despite the fact that the constitution specifically mentions it? Once again I refer you to your citation of the US consitution : Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2, "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." (emphasis mine)
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.

Wrong. They have original juristiction in those cases...(Elk Grove, which is an arm of a state, V. Newdow)

Yes, this is pushing it, but I don't really care...

It either is going to be struck down as unconsitutional, or it should be. I would be very disappointed if it was the latter.

Writ of Certiorari from a state supreme court might do the trick...and that last bit about forbiding the USSC from having appellate jurisdiction won't fly...Come to think of it, a writ from a state case wouldn't work either as that comes under the appellate jurisdiction. Nope, if you want the Federal courts to hear your pledge case you have to file in the USSC to start with (under this bill). There have been similar bills in the past and even laws limiting the power of the federal courts to hear certain types of cases and they've flown.

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.

Wrong. They have original juristiction in those cases...(Elk Grove, which is an arm of a state, V. Newdow)

Yes, this is pushing it, but I don't really care...right the USSC can hear the case (under the US constituion) as original jurisdiction, but no other federal court can. Who's saying the USSC cannot hear pledge cases as orignal jurisdiction? This bill does not restrict the USSC's orignal jurisdiction in any way shape or form.

As for whether or not this meets the standards of a case in which "a state shall be Party", I'm not sure. Traditionally criminal cases where the state acts as prosecutor do not meet this standard, but a civil suit by a citizen of a state against the state, hmm? An argument could be made that such would not fall under Original jurisdiction because the state is not the real party but instead the state government is, but I don't know if the question has ever been decided. It's irrelevant in terms of this bill however since this bill makes no attempt to limit the original jurisdiction of the USSC or prevent the USSC from hearing pledge cases under Original Jurisdiction.

It is a masterful political ploy to force the Democrats to support one of their many unpopular positions in the spotlight during an elections!