In the linked piece, Alan Keyes discusses an important US Constitutional point which applies to both the federal court ruling against Arizona's law SB 1070 and to the federal court ruling against California's Proposition 8 amendment to its own Constitution (and, of course, applies to numerous other federal court rulings) -- namely, that both rulings are themselves in violation of the US Constitution, and thus, are void; for all such cases must be brought only before the US Supreme Court, and may not be brought before an inferior court.
Alan Keyes: Arizona cannot constitutionally be judged by inferior courts
This is the article Keyes references --
Publius Huldah (Canada Free Press): ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The current idea is that for suits under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment overrides Article III because the amendment was written later. And Congress has the authority to enforce it with "appropriate legislation."
"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Well! The un-Civil War certainly did a number on the concept of enumerated powers in the governance of the United States, didn't it? That clause first appears in the 13th.
Who knew that such a simple sentence could essentially repeal the entire Constitution?
NEVERTHELESS -- and not even taking into account that the whole idea that the Supreme Court is the Oracle of Constitutionality is itself a Constitutionally dodgy idea -- until it is established at the appropriate level, that being the SC, that there exists a Constitutional right for a man to marry a man (or a woman a woman), then Article III applies.
Drew, I suspect that you won't give serious thought to what I said, for after all, I have no legal training. But, you really ought to consider it carefully. [for Gentle Reader, here is the 14th amendment]
Also, I wonder whether the 14th might serve as a basis for eliminating the illegal alien bonus to representation in Congress.
I mean, even aside from the fact that simple reason should neven have allowed the bonus to exist in the first place.
The Fourteenth Amendment was written to undermine the states, and it wouldn't very easily serve that purpose if the "appropriate legislation" could only be heard by one court. Granted, the amendment was rather poorly and vaguely drafted. But although the Fourteenth Amendment has done a great deal of harm, really I think it's been activist Leftist judges that have done most of the harm rather than the actual text of the amendment. The amendment wasn't even intended to grant equal rights to women, much less bestow moral approval on gays.
"The Fourteenth Amendment was written to undermine the states, and it wouldn't very easily serve that purpose if the "appropriate legislation" could only be heard by one court."
You're wholly missing my point -- by pursuing the case in an inferior court, the Obama administration and judge of that the inferior court, by accepting the case, have assumed the very point at issue.
Well, sort of. I'm not exactly sure it works, but I think you basically just have to *argue* that your claim is based on the Fourteenth Amendment. But it's not like that judge was fair and unbiased, anyway.
Post a Comment