NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~2422887,00.html

The US courts are no longer allowed to hear cases revolving around the controversy of the words "under God".
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to limit what issues the courts can hear and rule on.

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~2422887,00.html

The US courts are no longer allowed to hear cases revolving around the controversy of the words "under God".
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to limit what issues the courts can hear and rule on.
"haha, you can threaten our national religion or prevent us from instituting an official religion now, ahahahaha"

Discussed. Only effects federal courts, and not the USSC (which I believe has original juristiction in a few places that this falls under).

So much for US democracy, God help the US if it run by Nazis in Congress or are they just called Republicans?

Discussed. Only effects federal courts, and not the USSC (which I believe has original juristiction in a few places that this falls under).

Damn, scared me for a second.

The USSC will hear it again, since they weaseled their way out of it the first time on a technicality.

Bah, teh Supreme Court is going to beat this down Hulk Smash! style the moment there's a challenge. They'll declare it unconstitutional and denounce it with language as strongly worded as possible. It's all a bluff by Congress, it won't stand for a moment when it is brought to question.

Discussed. Only effects federal courts, and not the USSC (which I believe has original juristiction in a few places that this falls under).
but it can only get to the USSC through the smaller courts, unless some one challenges the US directly

Discussed. Only effects federal courts, and not the USSC (which I believe has original juristiction in a few places that this falls under).
Congress can limit what cases the Supreme Court can hear.

The USSC will hear it again, since they weaseled their way out of it the first time on a technicality.

one day they will actually have to confront the issue. and when that day comes the only logical, constitutionally based ruling they could make is that having 'under god' in the pledge in a school setting is in fact completely unconstitutional. which is why they don't want to touch it.

This is such an absolute non-issue. What a waste of time for our lawmakers.

Congress can limit what cases the Supreme Court can hear.
Only under appellate cases, not cases where it has original juristiction.

Only under appellate cases, not cases where it has original juristiction.

Article 1 Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Article. III.
Section. 1.

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 Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
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.

The US Supreme Court almost never hears original cases. It only hears appellate cases anymore. The only original case it has heard in a while was one involving President Clinton in the 90's and it ruled against him.

Article 1 Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Article. III.
Section. 1.

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 Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
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.
Read the line before it. "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" End. Period. Congress can't touch this. I was referring to the "In which a state shall be a party" segment, as it will take one minute before some smartass brings a suit against a state for this.

So what if they haven't heard one in a bit, they will start now...

Congress can limit what cases the Supreme Court can hear.
However, that can only be done through a constitutional amendment, and that is extremely hard to pass. In nearly 216 years of the US government, the constitution has been amended a mere 17 times.

However, that can only be done through a constitutional amendment, and that is extremely hard to pass. In nearly 216 years of the US government, the constitution has been amended a mere 17 times.
Nope, it is done through passing a law. The jurisdiction of all federal courts other than the USSC is estabished by congress. If they want to, they can create 26 seperate federal courts A to Z, each of which has jurisdiction in all federal cases involving persons with last names matching the letter of the court. If congress wants to it can establish a seperate court just to handle cases involving the IRS and Taxpayers and preventing other courts from hearing these cases, merely by passing a law (oh wait, they already have). What congress cannot do without a constitutional amendment is change the original jurisdiction of the USSC, as laid out in the US constitution.

This is such an absolute non-issue. What a waste of time for our lawmakers.

LOL. It wouldn't be such a waste of time if people would stop defending the religious references and just let them be abolished quickly, instead of dragging them to the Supreme Court.

What if it was "under Buddha"? You'd make an issue out of it wouldn't you?

You only think it's a "non-issue" cause you agree with it.

Nope, it is done through passing a law. The jurisdiction of all federal courts other than the USSC is estabished by congress. If they want to, they can create 26 seperate federal courts A to Z, each of which has jurisdiction in all federal cases involving persons with last names matching the letter of the court. If congress wants to it can establish a seperate court just to handle cases involving the IRS and Taxpayers and preventing other courts from hearing these cases, merely by passing a law (oh wait, they already have). What congress cannot do without a constitutional amendment is change the original jurisdiction of the USSC, as laid out in the US constitution.
That's what I meant. But the Supreme Court made its own basis for hearing cases. In the early 1800s, they decided in Madison vs. Mulberry (I think that was the case) that two lower courts must hear cases before the Supreme Court even considers a case. No one can approach the Supreme Court directly, except in cases of judicial review.

That's what I meant. But the Supreme Court made its own basis for hearing cases. In the early 1800s, they decided in Madison vs. Mulberry (I think that was the case) that two lower courts must hear cases before the Supreme Court even considers a case. No one can approach the Supreme Court directly, except in cases of judicial review.
What one court makes, another unmakes. If this stops any cases from reaching the court, I'll be surprised.

I'm glad they are doing this. The Supreme Court's needs to be limited, otherwise it will turn itself into the Isreali's Supreme Court. They can pick their own members, kill any law for any reason (regardless of constiutionality), and they have a bunch of powers of the executive and the legislative branch. I apologize for not being able to think of everything off the top of my head, but I'll get back to you on it, if you wish.

What one court makes, another unmakes. If this stops any cases from reaching the court, I'll be surprised.
So would I. The Constitution is extremely vague abut what the Supreme Court can declare unconstitutional. They can declare anything unconstitutional, depending on their interpretation. If they were really shrewd, they're probably the branch that is most likely to be able to have absolute control over the US. Perhaps this sounds farfetched, but I don't think that the average American knows how powerful these justices are.

That's what I meant. But the Supreme Court made its own basis for hearing cases. In the early 1800s, they decided in Madison vs. Mulberry (I think that was the case) that two lower courts must hear cases before the Supreme Court even considers a case. No one can approach the Supreme Court directly, except in cases of judicial review.Marbury. DId nothing of the sort, instead it estabished that the USSC was the final arbiter (in government) of constituional interpertation. Congress passed a law increasing the OJ of the USSC to include the case, but the USSC ruled that congress had no power (absent the amendment process) to change the OJ of the USSC. There was no two court requirement, only that the USSC was a court of appeal for cases other than those under OJ - and one can in fact appeal from a lower court to the USSC before a case has even been heard (done recently in Cheney). A few years ago New Hampshire versus Maine went directly to the USSC, it was a border dispute between the states (part of OJ).

Marbury. DId nothing of the sort, instead it estabished that the USSC was the final arbiter (in government) of constituional interpertation. Congress passed a law increasing the OJ of the USSC to include the case, but the USSC ruled that congress had no power (absent the amendment process) to change the OJ of the USSC. There was no two court requirement, only that the USSC was a court of appeal for cases other than those under OJ - and one can in fact appeal from a lower court to the USSC before a case has even been heard (done recently in Cheney). A few years ago New Hampshire versus Maine went directly to the USSC, it was a border dispute between the states (part of OJ).
I must be getting cases confused. It has been a few years since I learned about this.

However, that can only be done through a constitutional amendment, and that is extremely hard to pass. In nearly 216 years of the US government, the constitution has been amended a mere 17 times.

You mean 25 times.

From the article:The bill, which the House approved, 247-173, has little chance of advancing in the Senate this year, but it laid down another marker for politicians seeking to differentiate themselves from their election opponents on volatile social issues of the day. Other "wedge' issues that have come up or may arise before the election include gay marriage and flag- burning.

This isn't law yet, and it won't be any time soon, and I have to agree with whichever poster it was who noted that the Supremes would put a Hulk Smash! on it. If they can figure out a way to decide Bush v. Gore the way they did, then they'll figure out a way to smack this down.

You mean 25 times.
I subtracted by ten, as the first ten amendments were passed together, in a package deal.