The REAL ID Rebellion
Sign the Petition!

Search Now:
Amazon Logo

Join the Insurrection!
The McCain-Feingold Insurrection
A Proud Friend of Israel

Track referers to your site with free referrer feed.

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Another day, another attempt to make the Constitution even more meaningless.

America is supposed to be the "land of the free, and the home of the brave."

I think it's more the land of the free so long as your not different, and the home of the brave so long as you toe the party line.

Here's Congress' latest attempt to make an end run around the Constitution.

H.R. 3313


This Act may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Act of 2004'.


(a) In General- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction

`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, section 1738C or this section.'.

(b) Amendments to the Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.
Union Calendar No. 374


2d Session

H. R. 3313

[Report No. 108-614]

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

July 19, 2004

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed


Of course, this would set a horrible precedent if it passed, and passed through the courts without being struck down.  If one law can be placed outside the court's jurisiction ([sarcasm]Those darn activist judges are "ruining our society" dammint[/sarcasm]), then any law could be.  Too bad for those who are adamant about their "god-given right" to tell other people how to live....The US Constition is pretty explicit....[emphasis mine]

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.

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.


See, a simple act of Legislation cannot take a Constitutional power away from a branch of government. They'd have to have a Consitutional Amendment.  And we've already seen how much support something like that drums up....