Hi Sandman,
Not that it matters, but the
intention of the bill is ultimately to reign in the power of the courts and return the power to decide moral and religious issues to the people and the legislatures.
In other words, if the people of a state wanted their children to be able to say "under God" when they pledged allegiance in school and they wrote and passed legislation allowing that, this bill would prevent Federal Appeals Court Judges from making that impossible. It would also potentially return the ability to actually decide on issues like assisted suicide, euthanasia, and abortion to the voters of individual states rather than vesting these decisions absolutely in an unelected judicial oligarchy.
The following is a more full explanation of the reasoning behind the bill from a source obviously more favorably disposed towards it:
What Congress Giveth, Congress Can Taketh Away
By Kay R. Daly
March 28, 2005The biggest misconception about the federal judiciary is that it is an all-powerful entity unto itself that can only be reined in by placing strict constructionists or constitutionalists onto the bench and hoping for the best. The truth of the matter is that it is the United States Congress as designated by Article III of the U.S. Constitution that created the lower courts of the federal judiciary.
This seems to be lost not only on the American people, but several members of Congress.
The critical line in Article III, Section 1, states: "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 key word is "may." It does not say that Congress "must" or "shall" create these federal courts.
In other words, it is the Congress that may or may not create the lower courts of the federal judiciary. They pay for the buildings, confirm the judges, and pay their salaries. In addition, without a statute from Congress granting jurisdiction, the federal court quite simply has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Congress is in the driver's seat and can expand or limit the scope of their jurisdiction as they see fit. Specifically, in Section 2 of Article III, judicial powers are enumerated in detail.
At the heart of the battle over the Terri Schiavo case is the epic struggle between the legislative and the judicial branches of government. The biggest myth of all in this battle is that Congress overstepped its bounds by allowing federal jurisdiction in the Schiavo case. It was certainly an extraordinary step to take, but it only seems extraordinary because the myth of the untouchable judiciary has not been debunked.
As a matter of law, Congress could convene today and abolish the entire federal judiciary, with the exception of the Supreme Court. It could also create a federal court to hear nothing but Terri Schiavo cases within the bounds of federal legal jurisdiction as enumerated in Article III, Section 2. The Congress has already created specific federal courts on tax law, national security and even maritime issues, so it has been done before.
In the past couple of years, we have seen examples of judicial tyranny in landmark cases about the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and gay marriage, to name but a few. Judicial activism and judicial tyranny has expanded exponentially only because "we the people" and our elected Congressional representatives have allowed it to happen.
Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) and Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) have introduced bills, S-520 in the Senate and HR 1070 in the House entitled the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005" that would limit the power of the federal judiciary specifically in religious liberty cases. These bills were also introduced in 2004, but languished in committee and were reintroduced at the beginning of this current congressional session.
This is not a new idea. In fact, in the 1980s, Senator Jesse Helms and Congressman Henry Hyde introduced bills repeatedly that would limit the federal courts jurisdiction over the specific issue of abortion. And it is not only the "hot button" social issues that bring into focus the power of the federal judiciary. Capping damages in class action cases also limits the federal courts overly broad discretion.
The main point here is that what Congress giveth, Congress can also taketh away. And quite frankly, it should. The grassroots efforts to confirm federal judges who will apply the Constitution as it is written should also include a strong push to limit judicial tyranny by demanding that our elected representatives, sworn to uphold the Constitution, to become cosponsors and move these bills to final passage.
In fact to fulfill the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, our elected representatives have an absolute obligation to reign in our out-of-control activist judiciary. In the last fifty years, it has been activist judges who have single handedly done more damage to our Constitution than the liberal media, pop culture and leftist politicians combined.
Terri Schiavo's greatest final gift to us might just be the spotlight that she has put on our system of justice. With all the legal and moral arguments swirling around her tragic story, there is enough speculation and misinformation to feed the punditocracy and legal scholars for years to come.
For those of us in the grassroots, troubled by Terri Schiavo's impending demise and the courts' complicity in it, roll up your sleeves. The fight has only begun.
(Source:
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/kdaly/2005/krd_03281.shtml)
[Why, oh why, do I enter into these political discussions - I must be a loon]
- SEAGOON
