Home
Support this Site:
Recent Posts
Punditry You Won't See on TVConservatism
Gay Divorce
Plan B for Marriage Foes
Burden of Proof
Scottyworld
In Other Food-related News
Not the KFC We Know
Rickshaws with Pedals
Packing in Virginia
Recipes
Political Nibbles
- Abject Funk
- American Leftist
- Atrios
- Bilmon
- BushOut.TV
- Blogarama
- The Blogging of the President
- Center for American Progress
- Corrente
- Counterspin
- The Daily Cookie
- Daily Kos
- Digby
- Kevin Drum
- The Gadflyer
- Jesus' General
- The Left End of The Dial
- Letters to W
- Liberal Oasis
- The New Republic
- Media Matters
- MyDD
- Obsidian Wings
- Orcinus
- Oxblog
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- Tapped
- The Rude Pundit
- Salon
- Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
- Uggabugga
- Wonkette
- Working for Change
Food Rants & Actual Edibles
- Cookies in Heaven
- D'Artagnan
- Dixie Dining
- The Food Section
- Grateful Palate
- Saute Wednesday
- Slow Food USA
- Strong Buzz
- Zagat
- Make Reservations
Archives
- 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
- 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
Kos Reader Blogs
Tidbits for Political Junkies with Short Attention Spans & Hearty Appetites
|Thursday, July 22, 2004
Bummer
The so-called marriage protection act passed the House. Let's make sure it dies, fast, in the Senate (though don't bet on it: all it will take is a simple majority).
Here's the core of it:
This is driving me nuts.
Funny thing, there would be no need to tell the courts they can't consider a matter of constitutionality -- if they didn't know perfectly well that they the law they don't want them to consider would never pass constitutional muster.
So much for liberty and justice for all.
[UPDATE: Josh Chafetz at Oxblog agrees that this thing is totally unconstitutional. Referring to the article III language used to justify this bill, Josh explains: "But the exceptions and regulations language is clearly talking only about the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress cannot strip jurisdiction over a federal question from the federal judiciary as a whole."]
|
Here's the core of it:
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.In other words, if this turkey gets past the Senate, no Federal Court will be able to hear matters concerning the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act -- at least until this idiotic piece of legislation is itself rule unconstitutional.
This is driving me nuts.
Funny thing, there would be no need to tell the courts they can't consider a matter of constitutionality -- if they didn't know perfectly well that they the law they don't want them to consider would never pass constitutional muster.
So much for liberty and justice for all.
[UPDATE: Josh Chafetz at Oxblog agrees that this thing is totally unconstitutional. Referring to the article III language used to justify this bill, Josh explains: "But the exceptions and regulations language is clearly talking only about the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress cannot strip jurisdiction over a federal question from the federal judiciary as a whole."]
|