PDA

View Full Version : New GOP gay-ban tactics




zimv20
Jul 15, 2004, 07:40 PM
link (http://thehill.com/news/071504/tactics.aspx)


Amendment to H.R. 3313

Offered by ________

Strike section 2(a) and insert the following:

1 (a) IN GENERAL. --- Chapter 99 of title 28, United
2 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol-
3 lowing:
4 "§1632. Limitation on jurisdiction
5 "No court created by Act of Congress shall have any
6 jurisdiction, and the Supreme Curt shall have no appel-
7 late jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining
8 to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitu-
9 tion of, section 1738C or this section.".


New GOP gay-ban tactics
Court powers could be taken away, says majority leader
By Jonathan E. Kaplan

Realizing that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage faces little chance of passing soon, if ever, House Republicans yesterday discussed alternative approaches, including stripping federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue, passing a federal law to define marriage and using the appropriations process to ban gay marriage in Washington.

All the legislative action on gay marriage is currently in the Senate, but the House GOP is rapidly developing its own tactics. Leaders will take their first step next week when they take up Rep. John Hostettler’s (R-Ind.) “jurisdiction stripping” bill. This would bar federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to gay sex and marriage.

While the House will not debate a constitutional amendment before the summer recess, it might take it up when Congress resumes in September.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters yesterday that he plans to use “jurisdiction stripping” measures to achieve other social policy goals as well. [For an example of the legislative language that would be used, see <above>.]

For example, he will push legislation to stop federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.


DeLay said the time is “not quite ripe” to apply the GOP’s new legislative tactics to the issue of abortion.


let democracy reign. are we moving to a one-branch government?



blackfox
Jul 15, 2004, 07:48 PM
Can the courts rule on the legality of this measure(s)?

Will this have any better chance of passing in the Senate and House?
Will there be a statute of limitations on these measures, because assuming Democrats ever return to power, then they can do all kinds of fun stuff that the conservatives will hate...

I'd like to think that the sheer audacity of the GOP these days is going to seriously come back and get them, in the courts (ironic) or in the voting booths...prompting a much needed re-assessment of the Republican Agenda...because even Republicans are getting pissed off these days (moderates, that is...)

Neserk
Jul 15, 2004, 08:00 PM
Will there be a statute of limitations on these measures, because assuming Democrats ever return to power, then they can do all kinds of fun stuff that the conservatives will hate...


LOL... that could be fun :D

Sayhey
Jul 15, 2004, 08:47 PM
The far right of the GOP is trying to build a consensus within their ranks that Marbury v Madison and every law since is a distortion of the Constitution. The drumbeat of "arbitrary judges" and "judges legislating from the bench" is all about trying to lay the foundation to overturn settled law of the last 200 years. These are the true "radicals" of today.

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v Madison 1803

link (http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/home.html)

Neserk
Jul 15, 2004, 09:34 PM
Here is the deal on married, filing single.

If you are 1040EZ you can't do it.

If you are 1040A you can, you pay a lower rate but can't take deductions.

If someone who understands tax lingo better than I do goes to www.irs.gov and searches forms for 1040A it explains it better than I can remember it.

Bottom line: people who are married still pay more taxes per person.