Depends upon how you read it, of course. Some say it does no such thing.

Or are we talking about the same clause?

Politics and ID/Creationism is one thing. Asking if a different person in a political office would improve or worsen the country is another.

Recall Rules For Posting To This Board?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

hhEb,

I assume we're talking about the same clause, this one:

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.

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdication in all but the above where it has original jurisdiction, but Congress can make exceptions and regulations about it.

Now, you could say that the exceptions and regulations apply only to original vs. appellate jurisdiction. That is Congress could only take away jurisdiction on some class of questions from lower courts (that it created), and give original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Is this what you're talking about?



-Richard

Especially since that paragraph speaks to that distinction, between appellate and original, right?

Right! We don't want to start a political discussion. I'm enjoying this thread so don't make me close it.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Ok, gonna tread the waters here.

To understand the foundation of religous freedom in the US, you've got to take it in the context in which it was meant at the time.

The US was established in large part by religous outcasts from England. They were banished for failure to comply with the tenets of the Anglican church. Puritans, Lutherans, Catholics, Episcapoleans (cripes, just butchered that one), and whatnot.

The reason various nods to the Christian deity exist in just about every symbolic icon this country holds dear is that the religous freedom that was touted when the US was born was built upon the principle that God didn't care how you said your prayers, so long as you said them. I'd say an easy 90+ percent of the citizens of the US at the time of the Declaration were some brand of Christian faith, and the First Amendment provided for the groundwork that all breeds of Christian worship could co-exist. Easy enough then, because they were largely all one major religion's variants. That context has expanded as the make up of the US has expanded to include everything from the basest cults, to the resurgent animist religions formerly persecuted by Christians, to the predominant faiths of Islam, Hinduism (If anyone can fill me in on the proper name for Hindu polytheism, please lemme know), Judaism, and Christianity.

Ya gots to take all these symbols in the appropriate context and understand that time changes the meaning of all words to some extent. The Christians in this country like to think they're the only ones that matter, but I think that's a pair of rose colored glasses long overdue for shattering.

As a "strict constructionist", when ever I have a question about the interpretation of the federal Constitution, I simple consult the Horse's Mouth, in the form of the Federalist Papers. The Horse's mouth was Publius [which is where I get my "handle", BTW ], which is me -- no, the nome de plume used by Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay, to argue in favor of ratification of the constitution and answer arguments of those opposed to it. They didn't use their real names so any public biases against them would apply to their arguments. They addressed the papers "To the People of New York".

Start with Federalist No. 81 (written by Jay, I think) and go through No.82, where the judicial power is discussed extensively.

In, No. 81 the first thing you will note is Publius is answering critics who claim that the Supreme Court will usurp the power of the legislature (Congress) and be able to mold the laws and the constitution itself to whatever it sees fit. Sound familiar? The Anti-federalists were ultimately right about this point.

However, the Anti-federalists wanted the ultimate judicial power (or said it would be preferable) to be vested in Congress. [And you'll note this idea still comes about from time to time, in various forms to give Congress power to override Supreme Court decisions]. That's actually the way it is in Britain, with the House of Lords being the final authority. And that's the way it was in many states at the time, including New York.

Publius argues that this is a bad idea, since how would a bad Congress, writing unconstitutional laws, suddenly become a good Congress when it wore the judicial hat. And I certainly agree there. However, it doesn't address the case of bad judges vs a good (or bad, too) Congress. [In fact I would argue that is the situation today. We have both judges and Congress usurping power. The federal judiciary lets Congress expand its power, but clamps down hard on the states, barring them from doing all sorts of thing.]

Publius answer to that was the impeachment power. That is Congress could impeach, try, and remove judges who usurped their power. However, you'll note that idea has become verbotten in modern times, with various legal scholars, not to mention judges themselves, becomming apopletic at the thought of Congress impeaching judges for their decisions. That power is only for misconduct or crimes committted while in office, they say.

Well, according to the horse's mouth, that power was the check on a runaway judiciary.

The second big argument Publius was responding to was the Anti-federalist claim that the wording of Article III would allow the federal judiciary to abolish trial by jury. [And note this fear was actually answered in the Bill of Rights, to make sure it didn't happen]. This came for the wording that the Supreme Court would appellate jurisdiction over both law and fact.

The doctrine at the time was a jury was the ultimate trier of fact. The facts were as the jury decided them, and appellate courts could only review the application of the law to those facts.

Publius first argues that an absolute distinction between law and fact is really impossible, as when a court reviews the application of law, it must also consider the facts as they relate to the law. And his final answer to this was the exceptions and regulations clause. Congress, by law, could state that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction did not extend to overturn the facts decided by a jury of an inferior court.

This shows clear intent that the exceptions and regulations clause can limit what the Supreme Court can review about inferior courts.

-Richard

I think it was intended to mean something that must have been obvious at the time, namely that it is the job of the judiciary to decide how the laws passed by congress apply to the facts of the case before it. I think it was never intended that the supreme court, or any other court, have the power to review congressional legislation for constitutionality. If that were intended, it would be in the constitution in unambiguous & explicit language.

The constitution is silent, without even a hint, as to who has the power to decide whether or not a law passed by congress is in violation of the constitution. I think it was the obvious intent that only "the people" should have that power, exercised through the ballot box, to vote out people who violated the constitution. It fits with the philosophy of the times, I think. After all, the constitution was originally drafted without an impeachment clause, out of fear that congress could remove a duly elected president, because they did not like his politics. But somebody (Madison, I think), convinced the other delegates that a corrupt president would have time to corrupt the entire executive branch, if they waited until the next election, for the people to throw the corrupt individual out of office. They must have had similar ideas about congress. If people in congress overstepped their authority, and violated the constitution, they would be voted out of office. Since at the time only representatives were necessarily elected, and they are all up for re-election every two years, it did not seem like too long to wait.

Personally, I prefer that system to the one we have now. Since members of the supreme court are not elected, and are appointed for life, they can do just about anything they want to, short of some impeachable offence. They can give full play to their ideology, and interpret the constitution without regard to the will of the people. I don't buy the line that they are free from political influence, and therefore free to be impartial. It sounds good, but I don't think it works.

In fact, I think it has hurt the country badly. You recall that even in the last two, hotly contested, national presidential elections, barely 50% of the people eligible to register & vote actually bothered to do so. I think they don't vote because they don't think their vote counts, partly because of the electoral college system (in which case their vote may really not count at all), and partly because of the supreme court, which is free to ignore them altogether.

If congress were free to violate the constitution at will, and did so (which I think they would quickly do in today's climate), then perhaps the "people" would at least get up the energy to vote every once in a while (is there any other "free" country with a voter turnout as low as ours?). Somebody, somewhere, sometime, obviously has to interpret whether or not a law passed by congress violates either the spirit or the word of the constitution. I think it should be the voting people, and not the supreme court, or any other court.

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

The Founding Fathers were highly intelligent, geniuses even. They were steeped in the Classics and the Bible, and from a totally different mindset to our own.

If they were resurrected 230 years on and saw the present US legal and constitutional system today, would they say "Well done, you've continued basically in our spirit!" or "You're all mad!"?

Being from an era when atheism and evolution were completely unknown, once Darwin was explained to them, what would they have to say about the legalities of the Evolution/ID teaching debate?

The problem there, Tim, is that the ballot box is a very non-specific forum. While one voter may choose to vote against a candidate based on that candidate's support for a law the voter feels is unconstitutional, the next person in line at the polls may base their vote on the candidate's hair color.

Indeed, in the current climate, incumbents have a near lock on their seats no matter how they perform. Even convicted felons have been reelected. The only exceptions seem to be when a general shift occurs in public opinion, and even then it often seems to happen only when one party has held power for "too long" (in the aggregate public's view) or shows signs of curruption beyond the generally-accepted level.

At least the Supreme Court is made up of legal specialists who consider each issue on its own merits, rather than on Congress' overall performance.

While I'm not a big fan of the current makeup of the Court, I don't find the alternative appealing in the least. In my opinion the US would have hundreds of unconstitutional laws by now, if that's how things had developed.

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

I think that anyone from 230 years ago would look at today's world and say "You're all mad". I imagine you and I would make the same judgment of the world that will exist 230 years from today.

I don't find it a particularly enlightening thing to speculate about, mostly because I don't hold the Founding Fathers to be valid ideals for today's world. To do so smacks a little of idolatry to me. Why should Hamilton's or Jefferson's opinion on slavery (or any other issue) serve as a guide for us today?

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

To speak of the "founding fathers" as if they had one voice or were of one mind in the framing of the constitution is to greatly over simplify the matter in the extreme.

Federalists such as George Washington or John Adams would be appalled at the amount of democratization that has occurred in the last 200+ year. This is can be clearly seen from a review of the federalist papers as well as the policies of the government during both the Washington administration and the Adams administration. The strongly believed in an enlightened elite who would rule over the common man.

The moderately Jacobin republicans of that era would, on the other hand, would be deeply shocked by independence and life terms of the federal judiciary. They would be horrified that the federal supreme court would have such broad powers of judicial review for them Marbury vs. Madison would not come until the dawn of the next century.

The questions concerning the nature of federal power as well as who should have a say in the exercise of that federal power have divided this country from the ratification conventions to the current war in Iraq. Between 1789 and 1860 these questions twice brought the young republic to the brink of civil war. Finally, in 1860, the republic was so hopelessly shredded by these issues that civil war could no longer be avoided. The nation that rose from the ashes of that conflict was far different than either federalist or republican of an earlier era could have ever imagined.

I believe very strongly in the nature of our democratic republic as it has evolved over the last two centuries, but it is a great mistake to believe that those who framed the constitution would either approve or disapprove of our current interpretation of the constitution the authored, they would be bewildered and shocked at the government we have built on the constitution they wrote.

They would probably realize that the ID proponents are pushing to have a particular religion established as supported by scientific facts.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

If it turns out that there's no creator does that invalidate the declaration? How much back tea tax would the U.S. owe to England?

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

[silly interlude]

Hmm...

Let's express the original statment mathematically as

If Creator={God} then men=equal

Now, this implication only fails when

Creator={God} but men<>equal

Thus

If Creator={} then men=equal

QED. Atheists don't need to worry.

[/silly interlude]

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

I want my tea!!!

__________________
N6MAA10816
Faber '62 ΔTX
Are you a Bright?

As for the pledge of allegiance, the entire pledge should be canceled. If congress has so little to do that they can waste time inflicting pledges on us then they should work part time and refund some of their salary to the taxpayers. They should abolish the pledge on their own time and apologize for wasting our money.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Damn it man!! This America!! Here real men drink a Cup o' Joe!!