Is this Treason? Anyone familiar with Constitutional Law?

[Discord]

Could it be considered TREASON? I had responded in another thread that anyone sponsoring or voting for the Constitution Restoration Act be immediately charged with Treason.
The bill itself is designing permanantly change the fundamental principles of the constitution and would officially make this country a theocracy, which is explicitly forbidden by our constitution. It looks to overthrow the balance of power, and imposing religious doctrin into US Law. I believe that even an ATTEMP at this and the introduction of the bill itself is grounds for treason.

What does anyone or with direct knowledge of Constitutional Law think about this?

CRA Bill here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520 :

<SNIP>

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--

(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.

<SNIP>

Editorial on it here:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=104&ItemID=7569

[Dookus]

1. It's not treason

and I'm not a lawyer. But the constitution lays out very clearly what is considered treason - this ain't it.

[Discord]

4. I'm searching now for the articles on treason.

I think that this is a dileberate attempt to overthrow the existing governmental system thru a political coup.

[BurtWorm]

28. You are right about that, but because they're using the constitutional

structure--i.e., the legislative process--I don't think they could be charged with actual treason. Nor should they be, or any one trying to get a law passed could be charged with treason.

But from a non-legal perspective, these people are traitors to democracy. They can't be charged in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion they can be, and I feel confident they'd be found guilty.

(Incidentally, I am not a constitutional lawyer.)

[bryant69]

5. I agree

Legaly they have not committed the crime of treason. That said, they have certainly betrayed and are betraying the principles this nation was founded on.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[rocktivity]

2. I agree completely--they're traitors AND terrorists

Any attempt to disenfranchise a branch of the U.S. government is an attempt to overthrow it. And of course, they are speaking only of a Christian extremist "God" which unconstitutionally establishes a state official religion.

:patriot:
rocknation

[lonestarnot]

3. Doesn't sound like treason...

[wtmusic]

6. The law is unconstitutional

The Supreme Court is just as it says: supreme. It is above the law, and answers only to the Constitution itself. In that sense it is impossible to exceed its jurisdiction.

There is already an important precedent here, which Rehnquist and other justices have acknowledged they will uphold. The Chase trial of 1805 gave "the assurance to federal judges that their judicial acts— their rulings from the bench— would not be a basis for removal from office by impeachment and conviction."

[Discord]

11. The wording of the Bill states BY TITLE

"To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court..."

By referring to Article III:

<SNIP>

SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.

Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to, on, or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.

<SNIP>

this is where I can't find the code in which they are referring.


So this in essence would make USSCJ impeachable.

[wtmusic]

13. It can't be removed from Supreme Court jurisdiction

it is basically claiming to allow State courts the right to determine

1) what the Supreme Court may rule on
2) whether precedent may apply

It is silly, and would be struck down in a heartbeat. The Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of the Constitution.

When it becomes an amendment proposal, that's when to worry.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. According to a letter from my RW Congressman on this act, the

legislative branch most certainly can remove a law from Supreme Court jurisdiction and it has already been done. I wrote to him last winter and received a reply, but don't have it with me at work. I have 'bugged' this guy so much, that he now writes truly personal letters of response to me!!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

17. The Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of the Constitution

While that is true, the problem that is forming here is much the same as the problem of the Supreme Courts ruling on the Indian Relocation Act of 1830, or thereabouts.

This was a case in which Andrew Jackson, then president of the US, wanted to relocate the Indians along the lower eastern states, North Carolina, to Florida, west to the Oklahoma territory. Which the government eventually did, and subsequently it became know as the "Trail of Tears".

The Supremes ruled it was unconstitutional for the government to do such and Jackson flagrantly ignored their order. He is oftentimes quoted as saying, "Marshall has reached his decision, now let him enforce it. Of course, the court could not enforce it in that although they decide what the law is, they have no ability to enforce it. Enforcement is the function of the Executive branch.

The point being, when push comes to shove, it's about whose got the guns and the courts don't have the guns. For me, this has always been the problem with the Democratic Party, as they have never understood that the point of the 2nd Amendment was for the people to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical Executive branch. Like the one we have forming now.

Let's hope that doesn't bite us in the near future.

[sinkingfeeling]

30. 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."

It has been used before. Right after the Civil War and just last Sept.

"Then, on Sept. 23, the House did something extraordinary. Rather than take a chance that the Supreme Court would get the case again and ban "under God" from the Pledge, it voted 247-173 to use the authority given to it under Article III of the Constitution to eliminate the case from the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts."

[Freedom_from_Chains]

41. Think, checks and balances

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.

[wtmusic]

42. sinkingfeeling has an excellent point

From a strict interpretation standpoint, this is frightening. The idea that the Supreme Court would have appellate jurisdiction "with such Exceptions...as the Congress shall make" would seem to argue fairly clearly that Congress has the power to pull any case out of appellate jurisdiction that it wants to.

Was this an oversight, or just faith in the idea that 278 elected members of Congress couldn't be wrong?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

43. And I disagree with the point

I see in the article where jurisdiction can be altered, but I see nothing about removal, which arguable is what the fundies are trying to do.

Most of the foundation for their argument seems to arise from two sources:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm ">Marbury v. Madison
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/8.htm">The Judiciary Act of 1789

Although more complete resources can be found here:

http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/article03/index.html">U.S. Constitution: Article III

And while sinkingfeeling is correct that Lincoln did suspend Habeas Corpus during the civil war, that has always been a contentious, and much debated point, which is in fact very limited by the Constitution under Article I sec. 9 cls. 2, which reads:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Clearly the Civil Way gave some foundation for it being enacted, a circumstance which is not currently present, although I would not put it past some of those in government now to bring about a situation to justify such.

The fact still remains, as I stated in my post #17, it eventually comes down to who has the means necessary to enforce any such changes. After all, ultimate authority of the government is vested in the people. Therefore, if we want to live in a theocracy, all that is required here is to do nothing and except such outlandish far right arguments as fact.

“From a strict interpretation standpoint, this is frightening”

For a great article on strict, albeit, original interpretation of the Constitution, that which is favored by Justice Scalia, including points about the “Constitution Restoration Act”, the rights of Congress over the Judiciary, and the charge of use of foreign law that is being leveled by conservatives these days, see the following:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20050119.html">The Use of Foreign Law in American Constitutional Interpretation:

[Cuban_Liberal]

7. No, it's not treason.

Treason is clearly defined in the Constitution.

[TahitiNut]

8. "As God is my witness ..."

I'll accept this if and only if God is willing to testify in 'person' before a joint session of Congress, televised worldwide. :shrug:

Until then, I think anyone who claims the "Divine Right of Kings" should be regarded as possessed by Satan. :evilgrin:

[Beam Me Up]

29. There are plenty of gods who might be willing to testify.

Or at least God's representative's on Earth. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon, believed by some to be the Mesiah sent by god to complete the earthly mission of Jesus, for example, who has financial ties with the Republican party and was recently "crowned by Congress".

Moon Crowned by US Congressmen

Rev. Syung Myung Moon is crowned by Danny K. Davis

As part of an Ambassadors for Peace ceremony, Rev. Moon was one of several dozen honorees at a ceremony at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 23, 2004. The media ignored the event at the time, but a freelance journalist, John Gorenfeld, spent the next three months reconstructing the details of the event. His writings forced a sheepish Washington Post, scooped by Web sites, to cover the Senate ritual, which the New York Times editorial page compared to an act of the Roman emperor Caligula.

In what the Times labelled "a coronation ceremony", the Rev. Sun Myung Moon was given a bejeweled crown by Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-IL and Moon announced that he would save everyone on Earth as he had saved the souls of even such murderous dictators as Hitler and Stalin — who had been born again through him. Moon said the reformed Hitler and Stalin vouched for him from the spirit world, calling him "none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent".

The awards ceremony was the grand finale of the Family Federation's coast-to-coast "take down the cross" tour, intended to remove Christian crosses from almost 300 churches — the idea being that the cross has been an obstacle to uniting religions. Wealthy churches largely have refused to participate in the tour, and nearly all the church's success has been in poor neighborhoods.

Then, too, there is Benjamin Creme and Maitreya who communicates telepathically with Creme. Some insist that on the "Day of Decleration"

Maitreya will go on international television worldwide and telepathically every human being will hear his message for his plan to transform humanity in his or her native language but it will be telepathic. Then he will give what he calls this experience of himself so there will be no doubts in anyone's heart of who he is because people recognize him instantly when he does this.
...
The government we have today will not survive 15 even 10 years after Maitreya's TV address. As much as we may worship our current system and all the other institutions we have build for 2,000 years in the western world under Christianity which then spread to rest of the world: these are not going to exist any longer.

So, God will soon be able to sort out all this for us, I'm sure. :sarcasm:

[TahitiNut]

32. What part of "in 'person'" wasn't clear?

:evilgrin:

[Beam Me Up]

33. Do you know the difference between God and *Bush?

God doesn't think He's *Bush.

[leveymg]

9. When I last checked,

a charge of "treason" was reserved for acts of intentionally giving aid to foes of the United States -- stuff like selling forts to the British or stealing nuclear secrets for the Russians.

If treason were an attempt to change the character of the Constitution, then American history would be filled with acts of treason. The 13th and 14th Amendements certainly changed the Bill of Rights and American Society, as did female suffrage, but I doubt if many today would seriously count those actions as treasonous. Well, maybe a few who voted for Bush-Cheney and still love them.

But, seriously, this Act has no hope of passage, but very clearly spells out the agenda of the religious Right-wing in this country. It's sponsorshave done us all a favor by putting things into such share ideological focus. If there's any hope for this country, it's that this jolts the swing voters in the middle into facing the truly radical nature of the Right's agenda.



:bounce:

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Could Be Sedition, Though

The legal definition of sedation has been intentionally left far more vague and open to interpretation.

I seriously doubt the gov't would go after these people for it, but i think there could be some reasonable interpretation that these people are seditionists, but not traitors.
The Professor

[Discord]

12. Well, the determination that changing this country

from a "Nation of Laws" and a Democracy, to a "Nation of God" and a Theocracy goes WAY beyond the scope of Amendments passed reguarding civil rights. In ALL said amendments, rights were GIVEN, while nothing was TAKEN AWAY. This Bill implicitly is exemptive to anyone not actively following Christian religious doctrine.

Also, in uncertain terms directs court to accept "God's Law" as the principle basis for our laws. That now God's Law would Trump Mans Law. And any judge failing to adhere to it could immediately be impeached.

This is an ACT OF WAR against the people of this country and the system of checks and balances, and the principles this country is founded on.

The distinction to be made, is finding legal precedent to declare such an abomination as an act of war against the people of this country.

[Cuban_Liberal]

14. Sorry, but legally "war" doesn't fit...

Ideas are not 'war', insofar as it regards treason.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. I'd call it war when what they do makes heresy and atheism

punishable offenses.

It might not be treason to suggest it, but to enact it would be IMHO.

[Cuban_Liberal]

23. You can 'call it' whatever you like.

As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, treason is defined in the Constitution, and enacting legislation does not fall under the definition. I think it's a dumb piece of proposed legislation, but it's clearly not treasonous.

:shrug:

[Discord]

24. Mmmm... I smell some godless witches burnin...

nothing like the smell of burning flesh in the morning...


Soon, we'll start hearing about people being arrested for herasy, and blasphemy.

eventually... they'll start calling all of the liberals traitors.

its a slipery slope. and we're sliding down it fast.

when they came for me.... it was already too late.

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. Ummm... OK.

:shrug:

[adwon]

15. No

It's not treason, but it is something else quite interesting.

The God section is pointless, so ignore it. That's not the bad part of this bill.

28 US 1260 is a restricted section of the US Code that I'm guessing, from the surrounding chapters, deals with Supreme Court jurisdiction from military courts. This is an attack on the recent decisions regarding Hamdi, Rasul, and Guantanamo. That is the important part of this legislation. Oh, section 1370 is reserved, meaning that it's a placeholder until legislation is passed to fill it.

Let me state again, section 1260 isn't accessible. It appears to be part of chapter 82 of title 28 of the US code. The last searchable section of the preceding chapter deals with certiorari from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. My guess, GUESS, is that this is a response to the recent rulings on both enemy combatants and detainees.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Not to be argumentative, but I think you are dead wrong on the

"God section is pointless". It would strip a significan clause from the first amendment -- something that should only be done with another amendment, if you want to go so far.

Hitler was not in full control of Germany until after the party had subverted the power of the judiciary. This is a two-pronged attack on the powers of the judiciary and the separation of church and state.

[adwon]

22. It is pointless

All it does is strip appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court. You can still litigate in federal District Courts and Courts of Appeals. This just prevents a final, definitive ruling from the Supreme Court. Of course, the phrase 'or otherwise' could be construed as an unconstitutional statutory restriction on the Court's original jurisdiction, in which case the Court would have to choose just how much to invalidate.

This has nothing to do with the Establishment Clause. Nothing. This is all about the Exceptions Clause.

The God part is not as important as setting a test for removal of federal judges. After all, the whole God part could be struck down as unwarranted interference into evidentiary procedures, which are inherently a judicial function (see Ex Parte McCardle).


Edit: Please bear in mind that I've laid out a legal argument, not a political argument, in accordance with the request of the OP.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. As is obvious from my post, I cannot speak as an expert on the

law, constitutional or otherwise, but it seems to me that the section posted by the OP speaks directly to the 1st Amendment.

"...the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review...any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of...government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning ...acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'."

By making a law which denies the supreme appellate judiciary jurisdiction over the constitutionality of public and official declarations of a religious nature, this act would, in effect, be making a law respecting an establishment of religion. Particularly when it then it continues to threaten impeachment of any judge who dares declare it unconstitutional. I was taught that the Supreme Court was THE arbiter of constitutionality.

I also understand that the lower federal courts operate at the will of Congress, and Congress can disband them at will. So removing this jurisdiction to courts that are subject to pressure could prevent any and all meaningful litigation in federal courts.

That's my layman's take on it. Please note that I am not dismissing your argument on the other part of it -- I will assume you know what worries you with good reason. I just think you are dismissing the 'God part' too easily. Could be a matter of whose horse is gored -- the dominionists and theocrats scare the hell out of me.

[adwon]

38. Actually

The majority of opinion goes against the idea that Congress has the power to unilaterally deny all relief in a given area. Let's say this law is passed. Will the federal courts be cowed into submission? Nope. It just means the law will end up being unconstitutional in certain jurisdictions...which will get damned interesting. It will be terribly interesting if a circuit court invalidates the entire piece of legislation and declares that the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction via the appellate process because the restriction is invalid. Wouldn't it be fun to see the GOP create a constitutional crisis that is insoluble on their terms?

The Supreme Court is not the only arbiter of the constitution. That's a bit fallacious. In most areas, it's the final arbiter, which is not the same as being the only arbiter. The Court doesn't take many cases in any given year because of the scope of the opinions they render. Frequently, the Court allows disputes to continue in the lower federal and state courts because it doesn't feel that either the issue is important or the case in question is correct for a definitive ruling.

Also, there are certain areas of policy that the Supreme Court recuses itself from considering, primarily because the political branches would ignore any ruling in those areas. And the political branches would be correct to do so. These areas are mostly limited to foreign policy, congressional self-governance, and certain aspects of election law. Not every issue that touches the constitution is correct for the Court to decide. That's why the Court frequently limits itself to decisions about who can use the power, not how the power should be used.

Both political branches also act as arbiters of the constititution, as is commensurate with their roles as co-equal branches of government. They make decisions on a daily basis as to the meaning of the constitution. The Court has authority as the final arbiter because it has a certain expertise in the area and the political branches agree to allow it to bind them to its decisions. This agreement isn't written into the constitution, but it's a long-standing tradition that began with Marbury v. Madison.

The God part is a smokescreen. It's pretty badly written and is likely to get nullified. The true purpose of the legislation is to coerce the courts to allow the administration to continue holding people indefinitely.

P.S. The first amendment is a bad argument for this bill. A better argument is that it's an attempt to reduce the authority of the Supreme Court and violates Marbury v. Madison. Most Americans will probably respond better to a threat to the independence and power of the Supreme Court than they will a threat, which it really isn't, to the Establishment Clause.

By the way, the 'no law' part in the first amendment is not absolute. It's hard to argue that this legislation actually enacts government support of religion. There is no direct government support of religion, which is the most likely test to use.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Thanks. I love the education available for me here on DU.

:thumbsup:

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. I shouldn't think it to be treason, but it is unconstitutional and just

plain stupid.

Something which holds such ramifications as this should only be considered in context of a constitutional amendment, since it would alter the basic structure of powers delineated by the constitution. I don't expect that even this supreme court would find it constitutional -- but of course there's that little two-step embedded in it which would keep them from ruling on it at all (if I am reading it right).

On second thought, maybe it is treason.

[dave123williams]

20. You can't pass a law that says 'no judicial review' - it's prima...

...fascia Unconstitutional.

[sinkingfeeling]

26. Oh yes they can and have. The House did so on Sept. 23, 2004

http://hnn.us/articles/7715.html

<snip> Then, on Sept. 23, the House did something extraordinary. Rather than take a chance that the Supreme Court would get the case again and ban "under God" from the Pledge, it voted 247-173 to use the authority given to it under Article III of the Constitution to eliminate the case from the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts.

The great irony is that the use of this power potentially undermines the viability of the Constitution. Once Congress goes down that road, it doesn't have to stop with the Pledge. It can remove cases dealing with abortion, affirmative action, the rights of criminal defendants or other areas of the law.

The House's action isn't unprecedented. It has deep roots. The founders knew they were creating a potentially powerful federal judiciary, with judges appointed for life and with the capacity to declare invalid the acts of state legislatures and state courts, as well as federal laws. <snip>

[dave123williams]

31. It'll die on judicial review...it's not to the Congress to decide what...

...is or isn't Constitutional. That's to the Courts, and there's no legal way of legislating your way around that. The case law couldn't be any more clear, and it starts with Marbury v. Madison.

[tritsofme]

40. Its an interesting conundrum

One that I love to play with in the abstract and theoretical world, but scares the hell out of me in reality.

Article III Section 2 of the Constitution states:

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.

Congress doesn't have to decide what is or what isn't constitutional, but they can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS so they are impotent to rule on the constitutionality of a certain subject.

[forgethell]

25. Nope, couldn't

be considered treason. C'mon, amending the Constitution = treason? No way. In fact the Constitution itself defines what treason is. Everything else in not treason.

Does this make any sense to you?

Not everything that you don't like, or even may actually be bad, is treason.

[On the Road]

34. They're Going After Marbury and McCullouch

This act does NOT "change the fundamental principles of the constitution". As a matter of fact, it's a throwback to the early days of the United States, in which the Supreme Court did not have the power to judge federal laws unconstitutional or to strike down state laws.

In 1803, the Supreme Court Rule in Marbury v. Madison that "it was not bound by an act of Congress that was 'repugnant to the Constitution.'" In doing so, it established judicial review of acts of Congress.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030224_grossman.html

Then in 1819, the Supreme Court widened the scope of federal authority over the states in McCulloch v. Maryland:

http://www.landmarkcases.org/mcculloch/home.html

Conservative legal scholars like Scalia or Rehnquist often use the "original intent" of the Constitution as a guide in interpreting it. If you slipped them truth serum, they might admit to hating the Marbury and McCulloch decisions and wanting to see them overturned. Unfortunately for them, that's considered an extreme position that cannot be voice publicly. It would throw our entire legal and judicial system into chaos, and turn back the clock in states that deviate from constitutional norms.

This proposed law gives Conservative judges leverage to attack judicial review and federal authority in ways not seen since the early 19th century.

I do think this is part of a coordinated plot, and I do think it will fail. But it is a little frightening.

[Beam Me Up]

35. Thanks for that assessment. Very helpful. n/t

[On the Road]

37. This Political Agenda First Struck Me in December 2000

during the Bush v Gore proceedings. The Florida state legislature unsuccessfully tried to select the electoral college representatives directly, thereby nullifying the vote and making the recounts moot. Part of the bill was that it would be unreviewable by the courts.

Since then, whenever a states' right proposal comes up or someone starts talking about original intent, lights start to flash: they're going after Marbury. And behind that, it's a matter of fighting the civil war all over again.