Re: USA Govt Cannot Stop Death

From: Big Dog (no)
Date: 03/27/05 

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:10:14 -0600

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:35:23 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:

>
>
>Big Dog wrote:
>>
>> True enough. Is this adherence to a precise reading of the
>> constitution a new idea of yours? I may be wrong, but I did not think
>> that you were to be counted among those who had great devotion to the
>> idea of limiting the individual branches of the federal government to
>> those powers explicitly enumerated in the constitution. Though you
>> now appear to so limit the Congress.
>
>I have been for some time a Constitutional Literalist. The only time I
>cut slack is in time of war, when our survival is at stake. The
>Constitution is our primary law, but it is not a suicide pact with folly.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
>> Apparently you have not read the Constitution at all. See Article
>> III, Section 2, wherein the supreme court operates, "under such
>> Regulations as the Congress shall make." Both in Law and in Fact,
>> incidentally.
>
>You read that wrong. That insulates a law from appelate jurisdiction.

So you think that the Supreme court can be removed from jurisdiction,
but not the District courts? Did you read the part where the court
said, "Authority to limit the jurisdiction necessarily carries with it
authority to limit the use of the jurisdiction."

Do you think the court was denying the authority of congress when they
said that?

Or did you miss the part where they said, "jurisdiction under the
power is confined within such limits as Congress sees fit to
prescribe"?

>That provision, by the way, has rarely or ever been invoked.

Is this an admission by you that it is a real limit? Maybe it should
be more.
>
>It does not tell the judges what to decide in cases where they do have
>jurisdiction.

No, it just defines where they do have jurisdiction, which was my
assertion. I was responding to your statement, which you have cut
out, that reads, "One of the glories of our constitution is that
the judicial branch is independent of the other two branches of
government. If yo don't like it, write to you Congressman to change
the Constitution and eliminate the judicial branch or make it
subservient to Congress. Is that what you really want?

>If you interpret the Constution that way, we may as well
>equip our judges with rubber stamps or better still, do away with the
>courts in toto.

Our courts are subservient to Congress, in that at any time Congress
wants, they can limit the court's jurisdiction in any area of law.

...Justice Frankfurter's remarks in National Mutual Ins. Co. v.
Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 655 (1948) (dissenting):
''Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may
withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred and it may do so even
while a case is sub judice.'' In The Francis Wright, 105 U.S. 381, 385
-386 (1882), upholding Congress' power to confine Supreme Court review
in admiralty cases to questions of law, the Court said: ''[W]hile the
appellate power of this court under the Constitution extends to all
cases within the judicial power of the United States, actual
jurisdiction under the power is confined within such limits as
Congress sees fit to prescribe. . . . What those powers shall be, and
to what extent they shall be exercised, are, and always have been,
proper subjects of legislative control. Authority to limit the
jurisdiction necessarily carries with it authority to limit the use of
the jurisdiction. Not only may whole classes of cases be kept out of
the jurisdiction altogether, but particular classes of questions may
be subjected to reexamination and review, while others are not.'"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/20.html#f1068
>
>If the congress gets "too funny" the courts will just empty the jails
>with a writ of mandamus and their is nothing Congress can do about it.

You really think the judges would do such a thing? I think we need to
get them out right now, as, in your opinion, they have no regard for
the rights or protection of the public at all!

>Our founders constructed our government to be a three legged stool.

And now, it has only one. Any judge can do about anything they wish.
Unless Congress removes that from their jurisdiction, Of course,
Congress cannot remove anything from the jurisdiction of the state
courts.

>It
>would not bode well if Congress took over the role of judge, jury and
>excutioner. That happened in England for a time, which is why Bills of
>Attainder and Letter of Marque and Reprisal are strictly non-kosher.

Thanks,
Big Dog

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT] Sending a Message -- Congress to courts: Get out of the war on terror
    ... Congress acted last year, but at the time gave the courts their usual power ... My guess is that the Court, ... studied ambiguities of the Constitution, ... Yoo is a tricky guy, ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Two Lying Presidents......
    ... the Court; if he granted the writ, there was a real risk Jefferson (& ... That Congress should be able to deny ... > the SCOTUS to give jurisdiction to the executive branch. ... Well, if you read the Constitution, that's what it says... ...
    (rec.sport.basketball.college)
  • Re: Holy Moly! Bush PERSONALLY Authorized Spying
    ... >>> What makes you think that Congress didn't know about it? ... that "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct ... court decision in an unrelated matter. ... There is no "right to privacy" mentioned in the Consitution nor any of the ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: USA Govt Cannot Stop Death
    ... >> those powers explicitly enumerated in the constitution. ... That insulates a law from appelate jurisdiction. ... So you think that the Supreme court can be removed from jurisdiction, ... Do you think the court was denying the authority of congress when they ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: House Considers Changes to Church-and-State Suits
    ... stability of the federal courts' jurisdiction dates only to ... jurisdiction was granted by Congress under Article III, ... Constitution, are matters for Congress to decide. ... encompass the lesser power of setting jurisdictional boundaries. ...
    (talk.origins)