squinney wrote:Thank you, Debra. I was hoping you would jump in.
Okay so what about this part:
"Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts. "
I'm reading this as this Act removes precedent on state courts, and any Supreme decision prior to enactment of this bill is null and void if it relates to an issue now being removed from Supreme Court jurisdiction. For example, States that have previously had cases referred to Supreme Court for such things as posting of Ten Commandments in their courthouse, will no longer have to take note of previous Supreme Court decisions on this matter, AND it won't be able to be heard by the Supreme Court after this.
Is that correct? Are there other more serious implications?
I think you are correct. For instance, in
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), the Supreme Court held:
Quote:A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the posting serves no constitutional educational function.
It would appear that Congress is attempting to legislatively OVERRULE a Supreme Court "rule of decision" in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Stone v. Graham would no longer be effective or binding on states. (Not really, but ostensibly.) Accordingly, if the CRA is passed, a state school official could post a copy of the Ten Commandments along with an "acknowledgment" of God as the source of our government and law as demonstrated by the Ten Commandments.
In another thread, we were discussing Justice Scalia and his comments made during the Supreme Court arguments in the Ten Commandments case of Van Orden v. Perry. Justice Scalia stated it is a FACT that our government derives its authority from God and that the majority of the people share his belief--and that the Ten Commandments is merely a symbol of that majoritarian belief that the Constitution tolerates. But, Stone v. Graham and other cases make it clear the the Constitution does NOT tolerate government endorsing this view. How can it serve any possible secular purpose for the government to endorse (or acknowledge as an undeniable fact) that our government derives its authority from God?
I firmly believe that the Supreme Court will declare the CRA unconstitutional in its entirety because it gives both state and federal entities and actors the LEGAL RIGHT to violate the establishment clause, forecloses all judicial review, and invalidates all federal case law (First Amendment Jurisprudence) as binding upon the states. The CRA is a clear example of legislation that runs afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.
See: UNITED STATES v. KLEIN, 80 U.S. 128 (1871)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/80/128.html
After the civil war, Congress passed various laws to regulate the subject of forfeiture, confiscation, or appropriation to public use without compensation, of private property whether real or personal of non-combatant enemies (those who gave aid and comfort to the rebellion). The President pardoned several persons and proclaimed that their property (except as to slaves) would be returned to them. Thereafter, the section of the Congressional Act that "granted authority" to the President to extend pardons was repealed.
To prevent these persons from reclaiming their property, Congress passed a law prohibited Courts from considering presidential pardons as evidence of loyalty, but mandated that the pardons be construed as admissions of disloyalty (thus disentitling the claimants from any right to regain possession of their property) and denying all judicial jurisdiction once it is shown that the claimant is relying on a presidential pardon.
The Court had previously held that the President's constitutional power to grant pardons was not subject to legislation. Therefore, the fact that Congress had legislated on the matter and then repealed the legislation was of no consequence--except to to say "that it is impossible to believe, while the repealed provision was in full force, and the faith of the legislature as well as the Executive was engaged to the restoration of the rights of property promised by the latter, that the proceeds of property of persons pardoned, which had been paid into the treasury, were to be withheld from them."
As to the Congressional enactment concerning the effect of presidential pardons and the Court's jurisdiction, the Court said:
Quote:But the language of the proviso shows plainly that it does not intend to withhold appellate jurisdiction except as a means to an end. Its great and controlling purpose is to deny to pardons granted by the President the effect which this court had adjudged them to have. The proviso declares that pardons shall not be considered by this court on appeal. We had already decided that it was our duty to consider them and give them effect, in cases like the present, as equivalent to proof of loyalty. It provides that whenever it shall appear that any judgment of the Court of Claims shall have been founded on such pardons, without other proof of loyalty, the Supreme Court shall have no further jurisdiction of the case and shall dismiss the same for want of jurisdiction. The proviso further declares that every pardon granted to any suitor in the Court of Claims and reciting that the person pardoned has been guilty of any act of rebellion or disloyalty, shall, if accepted in writing without disclaimer of the fact recited, be taken as conclusive evidence in that court and on appeal, of the act recited; and on proof of pardon or acceptance, summarily made on motion [80 U.S. 128, 146] or otherwise, the jurisdiction of the court shall cease and the suit shall be forthwith dismissed.
It is evident from this statement that the denial of jurisdiction to this court, as well as to the Court of Claims, is founded solely on the application of a rule of decision, in causes pending, prescribed by Congress. The court has jurisdiction of the cause to a given point; but when it ascertains that a certain state of things exists, its jurisdiction is to cease and it is required to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction.
It seems to us that this is not an exercise of the acknowledged power of Congress to make exceptions and prescribe regulations to the appellate power.
The court is required to ascertain the existence of certain facts and thereupon to declare that its jurisdiction on appeal has ceased, by dismissing the bill. What is this but to prescribe a rule for the decision of a cause in a particular way? In the case before us, the Court of Claims has rendered judgment for the claimant and an appeal has been taken to this court. We are directed to dismiss the appeal, if we find that the judgment must be affirmed, because of a pardon granted to the intestate of the claimants. Can we do so without allowing one party to the controversy to decide it in its own favor? Can we do so without allowing that the legislature may prescribe rules of decision to the Judicial Department of the government in cases pending before it?
. . . We must think that Congress has inadvertently passed the limit which separates the legislative from the judicial power.
It is of vital importance that these powers be kept distinct. The Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish. The same instrument, in the last clause of the same article, provides that in all cases other than those of original jurisdiction, '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.'
Congress has already provided that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction of the judgments of the Court of Claims on appeal. Can it prescribe a rule in conformity with which the court must deny to itself the jurisdiction thus conferred, because and only because its decision, in accordance with settled law, must be adverse to the government and favorable to the suitor? This question seems to us to answer itself.
Likewise, the CRA is a means to an end. Its great and controlling purpose is to deny to the people any protection of the First Amendment against governmental establishment (endorsement) of religion--a security against infringement the Court has already declared that we have in accordance with the Constitution. Congress has already provided that the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction of the judgments of the Circuit Courts of Appeal. Any mandatory dismissal for want of jurisdiction in an acknowledgment of God case is a legislatively mandated "rule of decision" in favor of the government entity or actor--and in accordance with U.S. v. Klein--is a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine.