"The Court Has No Army or Navy"

Indiana's 8th district representative [Republican John Hostettler] is in trouble after being detained at the Louisville airport for carrying a loaded gun in his briefcase.

The crime is a misdemeanor but it carries a sentence of up to a year in jail and a $500 fine.

So why was he carrying the gun and was he treated any differently? Hostettler says, "The young lady that was looking at the x-ray actually thought she was being tested, but she wasn't . She had just come across somebody that made a very stupid mistake and left my gun in my briefcase."

Rep. Hostettler, addressing a special legislative briefing of the Christian Coalition last month in Washington, reportedly talked at length about a bill he plans to introduce. It would deny federal courts the right to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage.

"Congress controls the federal judiciary," Rep. Hostettler was quoted as saying. "If Congress wants to, it can refer all cases to the state courts. Congress can say the federal courts have limited power to enforce their decision."

...He was quoted as telling the Christian Coalition members:

"When the courts make unconstitutional decisions, we should not enforce them. Federal courts have no army or navy... The court can opine, decide, talk about, sing, whatever it wants to do. We're not saying they can't do that. At the end of the day, we're saying the court can't enforce its opinions."

Another congressman, Alabama Republican Robert Aderholdt, was quoted as advocating court stripping as a means to protect state-sponsored Ten Commandment displays, such as the one erected by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Helter said:
This is the check against judicial abuse, at least that's what I was taught in civics class way back in high school. I don't know how often it's implemented, but this isn't without precedent.

Keith said:
Then, if the courts are castrated, who checks abuse by the House and Senate? The President? Bwahaha.

Helter said:

The courts aren't castrated any more than the existence of the courts castrates the legislature. They both serve as a check on the other. Just as the president serves as a check on the legislature with his veto power, and the legislature serves as a check on the president with their over-ride. No one branch has complete power, but the final say is always with the elected delegates. They can always, if enough of them come together, force the path that the government takes.

at least that's my understanding.

[Edited on Nov 27, 2004 by Helter]

Sadistic_Bastard said:
What I want to know is why Keith is trying to connect a speech given to the CC with an incident occurring in an airport a month later, and calling it a "response".

Sadistic_Bastard said:
The check against the SCOTUS is called a Constitutional Amendment. The SCOTUS, theoretically at least, uses the U.S. Constitution as a framework for it's decisions, but any Amendments trump their decisions. If Congresswoman X introduced a a bill to amend the Constitution to require all employers to pay women twice as much as men, and it passed in both House and Senate, and it was signed into law by the President, and it was ratified by two-thirds of the States, the SCOTUS would have no choice but to find a new law that re-equalized the pay rates to be unconstitutional.

This is why the Marriage Amendment was introduced, to make it irreversable by any court. However, the difficulty of passing ANY amendment was illustrated perfectly when this bill was voted down prior to the elections. Anyone with the ability to count could see that it would never pass. The votes simply weren't there, not in the House, not in the Senate, and not in 35 State legislatures. More importantly, there never will be, no matter how many liberals run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

What I want to know is why Keith is trying to connect a speech given to the CC with an incident occurring in an airport a month later, and calling it a "response".

WTF?


[Edited on Nov 27, 2004 by Sadistic_Bastard]

darwinsjoke said:
sorry SD you're off a little bit. the amendment must pass by 2/3 majority in both houses, the president doesn't sign amendments, and it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states' legislatures.

Keith said:

Because I'm lazy, and didn't check the dates, plus that was how it was presented to me. I do think it is relevent, however, to this gentleman's opinion of the courts. If he's willing to do it against gay marriage, it's hard to believe he wouldn't do it to save his own ass.

Sadistic_Bastard said:

Noted, and corrected.

By the way, if you must use initials, at least use the correct ones.

dead_ringer said:

your understanding is paritally incorrect. the final say in 200 years of constitutional history and tradition is always with the Court. note the pertinent parts of Article III:

Section. 1.

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 Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

the power of judicial review extends back to
Marbury v. Madison (U.S. 1803) .

the only significant instance of failure to abide by a court ruling came when the governor of alabama refused to desegregate after the Brown v. Board of Ed. decision. the national guard was sent in to enforce the ruling. another instance was after the
Bush v. Gore decision in 2000. there was speculation that Gore would not concede even in the face of that dip-shit decision. he did concede and the crisis was averted. of course congress has power to limit jurisdiction of the district courts, but to my knowledge (and i could be wrong) this has not happened at the supreme court level.

an attempt to "castrate" the supreme court would be unprecedented and would mark a very disturbing and unkown path in our federalism. it would basically turn everything we know about the constitution and the law on its ear - very bad news.

think apartheid south africa style of government right here at home.

Sadistic_Bastard said:
The check against the SCOTUS is called a Constitutional Amendment. The SCOTUS, theoretically at least, uses the U.S. Constitution as a framework for it's decisions, but any Amendments trump their decisions. If Congresswoman X introduced a a bill to amend the Constitution to require all employers to pay women twice as much as men, and it passed in both House and Senate by 2/3 majorities, and it was ratified by three-fourths of the States, the SCOTUS would have no choice but to find a new law that re-equalized the pay rates to be unconstitutional.

Helter said:

None of this disagrees with me, or shows my understanding to be incomplete. The courts were given the last say on constitutional law, but weren't granted the power to enforce their decisions. Hence, they require cooperation from the legislative branch to pass laws in tune with their decisions and the executive to enforce such.

There are in fact, many cases in which court rulings went unenforced, and the government went on it's merry way regardless of the fact that the court told them not to.

dead_ringer said:
i wasn't picking a fight and i'm sorry that you took it as such. what i disagreed with (which is why i said "partially incorrect") was your assertion that the political branches can always enforce their will on the court - i assume you meant by constitutional amendment - while this is partially true, there are numerous instances when congress has tried to force the court into its understanding of an issue and the court has had none of it - and we go on with no crisis...

as to the second part: that's why i said "significant" instances, and there have not been many cases of unenforcement. if you know of some, provide examples of such, and i will gladly concede.

again, not being combative, just disagreeing.

Helter said:

They would have no choice huh? And what exactly, would enforce that? Huh? Let's just say that they decided to ignore your analysis, and decided to declare said law unconstitutional, despite the fact that it quite clearly and plainly fell within the scope of the constitution, what then?

Helter said:

They would have no choice huh? And what exactly, would enforce that? Huh? Let's just say that they decided to ignore your analysis, and decided to declare said law unconstitutional, despite the fact that it quite clearly and plainly fell within the scope of the constitution, what then?

Helter said:
They would have no choice huh? And what exactly, would enforce that? Huh? Let's just say that they decided to ignore your analysis, and decided to declare said law unconstitutional, despite the fact that it quite clearly and plainly fell within the scope of the constitution, what then?

Sadistic_Bastard said:
I'm not sure I am understanding the question. In my example, the Amendment trumps the later law, and the court would have to find the law unconstitutional. Did you mean the Amendment?