Texas GOP: just trust us to know what the bill of rights is...

[acroyear]

Meet The Texas Republican Party:

Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights.

Yup, the Texas GOP has decided that we should just trust the lawmakers (i.e., them if they get elected) to just follow the Bill of Rights so closely that there would be no need (nevermind a right) to challenge them if they violate it in any way at all.

The entire document is a blatant statement of bigotry and xenophobia so large you would almost think it was made up by a satirist, but it isn't.  It is real.  These people really are that fucking nuts.

Especially ironic is the wonderful line "We deplore all discrimination" in the middle of a document that otherwise is full of "american rights are for real americans only" bullshit.

To give them a tiny bit of credit, there's one statement in there that I can really support:

We oppose the manner in which alleged vehicle violations are documented and fines levied against individuals without proof of their having been the driver of the offending vehicle and we call for a ban on Red Light Cameras in the State of Texas.

Everything else us just full of "we hate everybody but Americans (except Israel, 'cause God says we're supposed to love Israel)" special pleading.

Comments

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights.

That's going to be a real trick, since Congress didn't grant the Supreme Court jurisdiction in the first place--it made a world-class power grab in 1803.

Thank you, Justice Marshall.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Article 6 kinda makes it clear:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This implies that in a question of an appeal in which the law is deemed unconstitutional, no judge can find in favor of the law. It also implies in "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof", that a law passed which is NOT "in Pursuance thereof" can not therefore be found to be valid as it conflicts with this "supreme Law of the Land".

Congress didn't need to grant the court that power: it is inherent in the document itself.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

I had this conversation with friends once...the next day one of them had a heart attack. (No, not kidding. Yes, it was coincidence. Still, I'm superstitious now.)

But, very briefly: That depends on how you interpret "in pursuance thereof"--it could mean "in accordance with the structures set up for passing laws," not "consistent with." Marbury v. Madison settled the question, but it wasn't a forgone conclusion then.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

well, the framer's intent was that under our newly won freedom and in the belief that we'd not do anything to hurt that which we fought for, Congress wouldn't be willing to pass an unconstitutional law in the first place, that they would abide by those rules we agreed upon in Philadelphia and never willingly violate them.

The framers actually intended Congress to be housed only with wise, educated, enlightened, like-minded libertarians (in the pure sense of the word, not the tea-party corrupted form) who'd never even want to pass a law that would take away our freedoms.

It took how long for the Alien and Sedition Acts to pretty much scratch that dream away?

There are aspects of the 18th Century I kinda miss...

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties . . .
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.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

in other words, by virtue of Congress NOT explicitly removing Judicial Review, then by statute the Supreme Court could declare their right to it?

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

No. I mean:
(1) Jurisdiction was not a power grab, it was explicitly granted by the constitution. (lj user="scifantasy" is thinking of judicial review)
(2) Congress has the power to make exceptions to jurisdiction, and therefore could probably pass a law (although this has never been tested) stating that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear appeals of cases involving "abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights."

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Sounds like treason to me.

It's totally alien to me. How could anyone trust congress? HAve they every read the laws those sumbags pass?

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

And that case was one of the finalists in the group performance at History Fair this year (Innovation In History). I think it was the juniors (6-8 grade). Yes, I thought of you during the presentation.