H.R.539 -- We the People Act

[Alferd_Packer]

Here's a little gem from Mr. Ron Paul

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539:

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

 

[Newtons Bit]

Here's a little gem from Mr. Ron Paul

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539:

Is it just me, or does this allow a State to adopt a theocracy of its choice?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Is it just me, or does this allow a State to adopt a theocracy of its choice?

It nullifies the 14th amendment.

 

[leftysergeant]

Is it just me, or does this allow a State to adopt a theocracy of its choice?

Of course it does. It also allows states to outlaw abortion, homosexuality, drunkeness, adultery and women sassing back at their husbands.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Of course it does. It also allows states to outlaw abortion, homosexuality, drunkeness, adultery and women sassing back at their husbands.

But I like sassy womens...

 

[Kestrel]

Clause (1)(B) Seems to be aimed at the right to privacy established by the court ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut^WP. As that case was used as precedent for Roe v. Wade^WP, the intent is probably to undermine court rulings on abortion.

The limitations imposed by section 4 basically take away the Federal courts right to rule on any state or local law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964^WP could not be enforced because it would overrule the legislative right of a Texas town to prohibit black people from being in town after sunset.

SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--
(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It nullifies the 14th amendment.

It also contradicts Article 3 Section 2 which gives the judiciary authority to decide ALL cases involving a conflict over the law (including the Constitution).

To pass something like that would require a constitutional amendment. (FWIW, that section has been amended once by the 11th Amendment in limiting who can file suit against states.)

 

[leftysergeant]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964^WP could not be enforced because it would overrule the legislative right of a Texas town to prohibit black people from being in town after sunset.

"States Rights" was what the racists shrieked when the act was first proposed.

Now you know why Stormfront likes the old whacko.

 

[Dunstan]

The phrase "we the people" in any modern writing is a near-certain sign that you're dealing with some serious whackaloonery. It's a sign of delusions of grandeur (look at me, I'm a modern-day James Madison!) and the fallacy that the great and good [Real] American people are really, truly, actually in agreement with you, and your inability to garner more than fringe support for your idea is purely the fault of the Librul Media Elites.

 

[gnome]

Find out what they think of this law when a state tries to regulate firearms

 

[Mikemcc]

The phrase "we the people" in any modern writing is a near-certain sign that you're dealing with some serious whackaloonery. It's a sign of delusions of grandeur (look at me, I'm a modern-day James Madison!) and the fallacy that the great and good [Real] American people are really, truly, actually in agreement with you, and your inability to garner more than fringe support for your idea is purely the fault of the Librul Media Elites.

Clause 1b sounds like a charter for peadophilia and any other sexual freakery

 

[NWO Sentryman]

"States Rights" was what the racists shrieked when the act was first proposed.

Now you know why Stormfront likes the old whacko.

Could someone explain the States Rights shtick that the extreme right in the US promotes?

 

[Random]

Could someone explain the States Rights shtick that the extreme right in the US promotes?

Nothing to explain really, it's blank-paper ideology in that it has no meaning other than what people assign to it. It's like the cires of "Judicial Activism!" that emerge from someone who has seen a judge rule a way that they disapprove of. If you dislike a state law and prefer the Federal law, you support Federal law. If you dislike the federal law, and prefer the state law you can say you favor "states' rights". It really is that vapid.

 

[Dunstan]

Could someone explain the States Rights shtick that the extreme right in the US promotes?

I'll take a swing at it.

First, the issue of "state's rights" in the abstract.

Pretty much every nation-state in the world has some political subdivisions, whether they're called states or provinces or cantons or municipalities. (And sometimes they're stacked within each other, as in cities within counties within states within the nation.) So they pretty much all have to deal with the question of which issues are decided at the national level, which at the local level, and to what extent and under what circumstances the national government can overrule the more local subdivisions.

The United States has a relatively weaker federal government compared to many other countries. The Constitution explicitly limits the federal government to certain enumerated powers, with any residual powers not mentioned belonging to the states. Of course, there's room for ample debate about what exactly those enumerated powers encompass, as with the current debate about health care legislation.

Anyway, you probably knew all or most of this already, but my point is just this: there's nothing inherently extremist or right-wing or racist about "state's rights." Philosophically, people just differ over what issues should be decided at a local level and can be decided differently in one state than another, and which should for moral or practical reasons be uniform across the nation, and there's plenty of constitutional and legal ambiguity in which to have that debate.

Some people have a principled approach to questions of federal vs. state authority, by which they often come down on the side that won't necessarily lead to the political results they prefer. Other people are much less principled, and seem to only invoke the principle of state's rights when it suits their purposes.

Anyway, as a practical matter, most of the hot debates in American history over state's rights have involved race. First it was slavery, then it was other civil rights issues such as Jim Crow laws, segregation, employment and housing discrimination, etc. And in each of those issues, it was the racists usually invoking "state's rights" as a defense.

So there's a rather ugly tendency today for the perfectly legitimate concept of "state's rights" to be used as a dog whistle to signal to racist voters that "I'm on your side."

Not that this is the only reason I think that fringe groups are so fond of that concept. State governments are usually easier for highly-motivated groups to control; many states have constitutions that are easier to amend than the federal one (hence the wave of anti-gay-marriage ballot propositions in recent years), or that create fewer veto points. And I think that just generally, these groups are suspicious of anything as big as the federal government, whereas their state government is probably more familiar.

 

[citizenzen]

The United States has a relatively weaker federal government compared to many other countries. The Constitution explicitly limits the federal government to certain enumerated powers, with any residual powers not mentioned belonging to the states. Of course, there's room for ample debate about what exactly those enumerated powers encompass, as with the current debate about health care legislation.

When the United States was established, the Founders identified with their respective states and I can see why they felt that allegiance to one's state would be nearly as strong as allegiance to the entire nation.

Here's a parallel situation ... if world government was established, I believe that most of us would assume that our national identities would prevail over allegiance and identification to "the world". However, If one could easily move between countries as one can move between states, old national allegiances would probably over time become quaint and relatively meaningless.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When the United States was established, the Founders identified with their respective states and I can see why they felt that allegiance to one's state would be nearly as strong as allegiance to the entire nation.

Actually, the Founding Fathers tried and rejected a system with a relatively weak central government in deference to much stronger states (The Articles of Confederation) in favor of the federalism of the Constitution.

And the same conflict between loyalty to state vs. loyalty to country arose again during the Civil War. One side won, and the other side lost.

The latter day states' rights movement is an attempt to resurrect a twice rejected approach to government in the U.S., (even when it goes under the very ironic name of "Neo-Federalism").

 

[Triterope]

I think this bill can be summarized as follows:

The Supreme Court and Federal Courts shall not adjudicate any claim contrary to the personal opinions of Ron Paul (Sec. 3), or spend money in ways Ron Paul opposes (Sec. 4.2)

Any party finding that the Supreme Court has ruled contrary to the opinions of Ron Paul may challenge the court's right to rule in the case (Sec. 5) and have the judge impeached for bad behavior (Sec. 6).

Anything decided by the Supreme Court that does not conform to the opinions of Ron Paul doesn't count (Sec. 7).

I find it difficult to explain to people why Ron Paul terrifies me. This bill is precisely why he terrifies me. It reveals how he truly views the Constitution: not as a sacred document to be cherished, but as a bludgeon with which to beat people into accepting his worldview as law.

If we ever have totalitarianism in this country, this is how it will start. Not by some scary foreign ideological invasion, but by a reasonable-looking man from our own midst who can convince us we need his special brand of ultra-American super-Constitutional wisdom to save us from ourselves.

Then something like this will get passed, full of vague and unchecked powers, effectively neutering one branch of government. Then a second branch is similarly neutered, and the next thing you know we're living in North Korea. And the people currently traipsing around the internet promoting Ron Paul's presidential campaign will our Bowibu: enforcing Ron Paul's opinions with no regard to the rights of others, convinced that they're saving the values of our nation as they destroy them.

I know that's a slippery slope argument. But history tells us this is often how it starts: a nation in a dark time finds a charismatic leader who promises a return the days of glory and a restoration of the nation's lost values. Do I even need to cite examples?

 

[leftysergeant]

I know that's a slippery slope argument. But history tells us this is often how it starts: a nation in a dark time finds a charismatic leader who promises a return the days of glory and a restoration of the nation's lost values. Do I even need to cite examples?

If you just come out and say it, the extreme right wingers will scream "Godwin."

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It also contradicts Article 3 Section 2 which gives the judiciary authority to decide ALL cases involving a conflict over the law (including the Constitution).

To pass something like that would require a constitutional amendment.

This is, quite plainly, a heaping pile of bull ****.

Article III, Section 2, clause 2:

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.

It's called "jurisdiction stripping" and requires no amending of the Constitution because such power is already provided.

 

[tyr_13]

This is, quite plainly, a heaping pile of bull ****.

Article III, Section 2, clause 2:

It's called "jurisdiction stripping" and requires no amending of the Constitution because such power is already provided.

Which of course cannot be applied to things that the Supreme court has original jurisdiction over. Incidentally, that would include all of parts A and C of H.R.539.

So far from being 'bull ****', Joe is substantially correct.