Talk:We the People Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
uh this page has like five citations and it's only a stub so I'm taking down the "needs citations" tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.114.171 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
He's a republican so basically this is the no gay marriage, no sodomy, and we demand the bible in schools act. :) Hempeater 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Questionable Interpretation?
After reading this bill, I was confused until I look at it in more detail. I believe this bill basically shifts the original jurisdiction of these claims to the state courts. In other words, the court would still have appellate jurisdiction in these matters. The constitution only allows the congress to make this type of shift of original jurisdiction, "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", and " The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...", --Article III Sec II U.S. Constitution. Isn't claims in law directed in statements of facts (i.e. original jurisdiction), so they claim upon the right to privacy that they shouldn't have gone into my home to find out I was gay. So one of us has a questionable interpretation, so which one is right? I know that wikipedia doesn't like people ask questions, they rather you suggest changes, but this question of interpretation is the heart of this article. If I am right, or this is still up in the air, I think it should be added that it changes only original jurisdiction, and not the context that the Federal Courts can never hear cases of this nature, they just can't decide what the facts really are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.24.156 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- From Section 3 of the bill:
- "The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court ... shall not adjudicate...."
- Since the Supreme Court is always appellate, it is pretty clear that the restrictions apply to appellate jurisdiction as well. The only case that directly addressed this issue, Ex Parte McCardle (1869), unanimously upheld Congress's power to restrict the Court's appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court wrote, "We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words. What, then, is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any case." FarmBoi (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Implications
This bill would have:
- Prohibited federal courts from hearing:
- "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction;" and
- "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."
- Allowed state courts to disobey standing federal precedent on the above issues; and
- Prohibited federal courts from making any ruling which expends funds or "imposes taxes."[1]
This shows clearly that Paul cares more for states' rights than individual rights: If this bill had become law, states would again be able to outlaw homosexuality, abortion, and any sex act. The bill explicitly references gay marriage (1.2) in a way that would do nothing to protect it; only to allow states to outlaw it. It would also severely limit the ability of the federal judiciary in a way that would have prevented:
- enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, to the extent that such enforcement would have required any money, or that freeing slaves constituted taxation of slave owners;
- suffrage, because all those extra ballots for women would have cost money;
- desegregation, to the extent that it required expenditure;
- legalization of abortion;
- discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians;
- requiring government buildings to comply with accessibility laws;
- the abolition of sodomy laws;
- any order for the government to comply with a law that required any money;
- requiring translation services in for battered women seeking restraining orders in family court; and
- a whole lot more.
I find this very disturbing. I fully realize that we must have a reliable source which states these problems, and I'm looking for one. ←BenB4 09:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's a reason you can't find citations for these wild assertions, most of them are false. I edited the article to reflect the actual text of the bill, which does not prevent courts from hearing cases determining the constitutionality of these laws. Gigs (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read the bill? It's not very long, you don't need to be a lawyer to comprehend this:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
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).
And bingo. The bill repeals the bill of rights from applying to States unless their state courts [i]choose[/i] to apply it, (and their state legislatures don't choose to revoke the ability of the state courts to do so).
So how is the implications of the bill false? --FNV (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article has been edited for accuracy:
I have stricken the unverifiable opinion regarding this bill allowing Texas to ban atheists from office.
The reason that a creator is involved with the laws of the United States and some individual states is because the whole concept of individual liberty REQUIRES the existence of a creator to be legally valid since without rights being derived from a creator, all people would be PROPERTY, and thus not free. The concept of a creator in relation to law is therefore not a SPIRITUAL foundation, but rather a LEGAL FICTION required to enable the individual to own their own bodies.
Hypothetically, without the legal fiction of a creator, you would not own your body. If your parents are the property of another, you are also owned by the person who owns your parents. Further, the owner of the food that you have eaten since birth would own you because you are made of their property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.147.222 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hogwash! I don't know where to begin. The concept of natural rights requires only nature, not a god. If the Constitution says you got a right, then it doesn't matter whether God exists or whether the Constitution says the right comes from God. You still got the right. Period. End of discussion. FarmBoi (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
