Reply #41: Think, checks and balances [View All]

[Freedom_from_Chains]

I’ve noticed that the theocrats have recently starting focusing in on Article III of the Constitution to support their position. There argument was predominantly put forth in a conference held recently, and parts of broadcast on C-Span last week, by “The Judeo Christian Council for Constitutional Reform”.

One of their speakers Herb Titus, former dean at Regents Law School, and apparently one of the designers of the Constitution Restoration Act 0f 2004 and now 2005, gave the main speech on the topic. Mr. Titus is an extremely dangerous man in that he put forth a very cogent, and well articulated Constitutional argument, which supported the radical rights position of the America as a Christian Nation myth. It was a particularly lethal argument in that most of the facts he presented were correct. Therefore, if someone were to actually check into the background most of it would seem to be valid. However, the conclusion he is able to draw from his argument is incorrect and I see your RW Congressman is now using the same tactic, if how you represent his communication to you is correct. Let’s look at the argument.

Your Congressman states, and you later posted he assigns to Article III sec 2 is:

“the legislative branch most certainly can remove a law from Supreme Court jurisdiction and it has already been done”

and:

“Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution does give Congress the authority to remove cases from the Supreme Court's 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 actual article he is citing is Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 2, which reads:

“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.”

This is a provision in the Constitution that raises and sets forth jurisdictional issues regarding the SC in that in some instances the court may have original jurisdiction, and in some, appellate jurisdiction, and yes, it does give Congress the authority to change such jurisdiction. It does not however, give the Congress the right to terminate or take away jurisdiction, as your congressman would like you to believe. Nevertheless, by telling a half-truth we can lead one to conclude that is the case.

Elsewhere in the Constitution; specifically Article III sec. 1, it states in part:
“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 Congress is given the authority to establish lower courts, and possibly abolish them, but it still does not give them the authority to nullify the Supreme Court. If the underpinning idea of checks and balances between the branches of government is true, it simply doesn’t make sense that the Constitution would do such. If the Congress were able to abolish, remove jurisdiction, or override decisions of the court, which they attempted to do in the Terry Schiavo case, how could the judiciary ever hope to act as a check against the Congress.

I honestly need to spend more time reviewing Article III, as I have never spent much time with it because it has just never come up before. That was until recently, as a certain segment of society is now trying to use it to overthrow the established form of government. Perhaps I should give more time to study Article III sec 3, which covers treason.