PDA

View Full Version : How was the Sanctity of Life Act supposed to work?




fisharmor
08-26-2008, 12:11 PM
Article 3, section 2 reads:


In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have 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.

He seems to have concentrated on the "under such regulations" bit, but the start of the paragraph clearly states that in cases where a State is a party, they have original jurisdiction. Wasn't Roe brought against Texas, in a US District Court, which is in original jurisdiction?

And doesn't that make the Sanctity of Life Act unconstitutional?

Kade
08-26-2008, 12:17 PM
Article 3, section 2 reads:



He seems to have concentrated on the "under such regulations" bit, but the start of the paragraph clearly states that in cases where a State is a party, they have original jurisdiction. Wasn't Roe brought against Texas, in a US District Court, which is in original jurisdiction?

And doesn't that make the Sanctity of Life Act unconstitutional?

Yes. I originally discussed this in one of my first posts ever here... I had many teeth wrangling idiots chime in, but they were ultimately wrong.

nickcoons
08-26-2008, 06:46 PM
You mention the second paragraph of Article III Section 2. However, the first paragraph reads:


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This provides a list of cases in which the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction. You'll notice that "a state and one of its citizens" is not listed there. Therefore, a case between the state of Texas and a citizen of Texas cannot be taken to the Supreme Court.

The paragraph you quoted does not state that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over all cases in which the state is a party. Instead, it qualifies that where it shall have original jurisdiction. In other words, in cases where it has jurisdiction, if the state is a party, then it has original jurisdiction. But it does not indicate that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction or any jurisdiction simply because a state is a party. Whether or not any jurisdiction exists is spelled out in Paragraph 1.

Specifically in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction, because it did not meet the criteria required by Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1.

Now, I'm not too familiar with the Sanctity of Life Act, other than I think it's Ron Paul's attempt at overturning Roe v. Wade (but I don't know the specifics), so I can't answer your question as to whether or not it is unconstitutional.

fisharmor
08-27-2008, 12:01 PM
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/text

Here is the relevant text as I can see it:

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

As I understand, the idea is to use congress' power of regulation over appellate cases to tell SCOTUS that it can't review cases involving state laws on abortion. And I can't see how that would work, neither if SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in cases of citizen vs. state as per my original thought, nor if SCOTUS has no jurisdiction at all in these cases as you suggest. In your reading, Roe shouldn't have gone to SCOTUS in the first place, so I doubt that's the popular reading.

And couldn't someone argue that since it contained a (incredibly tenuous) constitutional ruling, it therefore arose under this Constitution and they therefore had original jurisdiction?

nickcoons
08-28-2008, 08:24 AM
As I understand, the idea is to use congress' power of regulation over appellate cases to tell SCOTUS that it can't review cases involving state laws on abortion. And I can't see how that would work, neither if SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in cases of citizen vs. state as per my original thought, nor if SCOTUS has no jurisdiction at all in these cases as you suggest.

If they had original jurisdiction, then I don't see how it would work either. However, it may be important that the Supreme Court was not the first to hear the Roe v. Wade case, but rather it was appealed to them after lower courts ruled in favor of the state. They may have considered this to be appellate jurisdiction because of the way the case was brought to them, and then the Act may work constitutionally.


In your reading, Roe shouldn't have gone to SCOTUS in the first place, so I doubt that's the popular reading.

I don't know whether or not it's the popular reading, I just know that it's what the Constitution says in plain English :). The "popular" reading of the Constitution has somehow allowed programs to creep in like Social Security, federal control over education, the Patriot Act, and any number of things that should be easily known as unconstitutional to anyone with an intermediate comprehension of English. So I'm not nearly as concerned with the popular reading as I am with what the document clearly states.


And couldn't someone argue that since it contained a (incredibly tenuous) constitutional ruling, it therefore arose under this Constitution and they therefore had original jurisdiction?

Only if it was challenging a federal law, or if it was a state law that was violating the incorporated Bill of Rights. I don't know of anywhere in the Bill of Rights where the right to an abortion has been secured.

This isn't to say that I don't think that there is a right to an abortion. I very much agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in this matter. We're just talking constitutionality here.

fisharmor
08-29-2008, 09:06 AM
But hang on, Roe was originally brought in a US District Court. Now I'm not an expert on the court system but it's my understanding that this means it was originally filed in an inferior court with original jurisdiction - probably with the understanding that original jurisdiction existed because a state was a party.

If that reading is correct and Roe did have original jurisdiction, then Paul's bill is a non-starter, because it's trying to regulate an appellate jurisdiction matter, which Roe isn't.

If Roe doesn't fall under original jurisdiction, then it should be attacked on those grounds, shouldn't it? It would make the bill meaningful, but the jurisdiction argument would still have to happen to overturn Roe, wouldn't it?

nickcoons
08-29-2008, 06:54 PM
But hang on, Roe was originally brought in a US District Court. Now I'm not an expert on the court system but it's my understanding that this means it was originally filed in an inferior court with original jurisdiction - probably with the understanding that original jurisdiction existed because a state was a party.

If that reading is correct and Roe did have original jurisdiction, then Paul's bill is a non-starter, because it's trying to regulate an appellate jurisdiction matter, which Roe isn't.

For the moment, we'll assume that the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) did have jurisdiction in this case.

The case was originally brought to an inferior court. They would be the ones to have original jurisdiction, and they sided with the state of Texas. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, so the Supreme Court was exercising appellate jurisdiction when hearing this case. Had the case been brought to the Supreme Court initially, they would have been exercising original jurisdiction, and Paul's bill would then be a non-starter as you mention. But the Supreme Court rarely does. Virtually all cases that they hear are appeals with them acting in their capacity as an appellate court.


If Roe doesn't fall under original jurisdiction, then it should be attacked on those grounds, shouldn't it? It would make the bill meaningful, but the jurisdiction argument would still have to happen to overturn Roe, wouldn't it?

My argument against it is that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, because the case was between a state and a citizen of that state. Article III Section 2 Paragraph 1 itemizes the list of case types in which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. A case in which a state and a citizen of that state are the parties is not listed in those qualifications. If that paragraph did include such criteria as to allow the Supreme Court jurisdiction, then Paragraph 2 would be used to determine the type of jurisdiction (original or appellate). But because no jurisdiction is given, then Paragraph 2 doesn't come in to play.

I agree that it should be attacked on the grounds that the Supreme Court never had jurisdiction to begin with, nor did any of the lower federal courts, the case should never have gone further than the Texas State Supreme Court, constitutionally speaking. Perhaps Ron Paul believes his method has a better chance of succeeding, since it appears to be valid.