'Protection' of Marriage

The House has passed a bill (H.R. 3313) which prohibits higher courts from
hearing or deciding the validity of the Defense of Marriage Act (233-194).

Most recent text of legislation:


       `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.'.

This action is justified by a report released by the House.  The report states
that the body fears the Federal Defense of Marriage Act will be overturned,
given recent decisions by federal courts (including the Supreme Court in the
case of Lawrence v. Texas).   The writers argue Congress has a right to protect
the DOMA because of the 'overwhelming margin' of passage in the House and
Senate,  the fact that 44 states have passed laws defining marriage as a union
between one man and one woman and the Constitutional powers given to define what
'Full Faith and Credit' means.


The document goes on at length in describing the authority of Congress to limit
the powers of Federal judiciary, under headings such as 'AMERICA'S GREATEST
LEADERS HAVE LONG BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT LIMITING FEDERAL JUDGES' ABUSE OF THEIR
AUTHORITY', 'CONGRESS HAS THE CLEAR AUTHORITY TO PASS H.R. 3313,' and 'FROM THE
FIRST JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 TO THE PRESENT, CONGRESS'S USE OF ITS AUTHORITY TO
LIMIT FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION HAS BEEN CONSISTENT AND BIPARTISAN.'

It's grandstanding bullshit in an election year, and if passed by the Senate,
sets a powerful precedent of limiting the ability of federal courts to examine
legislation that eliminates rights of a minority the majority does not approve
of.   

 '[I]f Congress can deny all Federal courts the authority to
hear a class of cases to protect trees, certainly it can do so to protect a
state’s marriage policy.' (Rep. John Sensenbrenner) While the 3 branches are
supposed to hold each otherin check, with a right-wing executive branch, and a
conservative Congress, it feels like wrong-headed politics to me.

Report available at:
http://your.ballistichelmet.org/~cpratt/public

It's long, 166 pages, includes committee testimony, which is always a good read.
We send some real nutballs to Congress.

-x
--
the
frontal assault
on the independence of the Federal courts is a 
dangerous blow 
to the foundations of the free society.

-Barry Goldwater
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/