.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The New Crusade

A Blog dedicated to the promotion of the Traditional Roman Catholic Faith in union with HH Benedict XVI, to the preservation of our Traditional Græco-Roman Catholic Civilisation and to the New Crusade against Islam. This Blog is under the Patronage of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts of Christ our King and His Holy Mother, our Queen and of Santiago Matamoros (St James the Moor-slayer) and the Crusader King, St Louis IX of France.

23 juillet 2006

Dennis Moore, MC, Constitutional Scholar?

I recently emailed Dennis Moore, MC asking for his support of HR 2389, the "Pledge Protection Act", which protects the Pledge of Allegiance from attempts by federal courts to declare it unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God", introduced into the US House of Representatives by Todd Akin, MC for the Second District of Missouri. His answer was a long explanation of why, despite his self-proclaimed patriotism, he had voted against a preceding, similar resolution and opposed HR 2389.

Below is the email I have sent him in response:

Dear Mr Moore:

I read with interest you letter of July 19, 2006 in response to my email requesting you to support H.R. 2389, introduced by Representative Akin.

Especially interesting was your statement that you have "(D)eep concerns about current efforts to deny the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, the ability to review the constitutionality of our federal laws. I believe preserving our three-branch system of government is in our nation's best interest."

Prompted by this, I reread Article III of the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, I reread it several times, searching in vain for any reference to an "ability to review the constitutionality of our federal laws". All I could find was a statement in Section 2 that "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." In other words, while the ability you cite is never mentioned, Congress is definitely granted the power to remove matters from the purview of the Supreme Court.

Of course, if the numerous American history courses I took in grade school, high school and college, all in public institutions of the State of Kansas, were not completely off base, there was no such "ability to review" contemplated by the Founding Fathers. Instead, it is a power arrogated to itself by the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall and concurred in by Associate Justices William Paterson, Samuel Chase and Bushrod Washington (Associate Justices William Cushing and Alfred Moore took no part in the case).

So, at the last, I am faced with a democratically elected representative of the people in a democratic country telling me that he supports a power not envisioned by the Founders granting nine unelected persons the power to determine what the Law is. Wow!


Jovan Weismiller


Enregistrer un commentaire

Links to this post:

Créer un lien

<< Home