Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 37 Share on Facebook 14 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 21 (73 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   20 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Reversing Citizens United: stripping the Roberts 5 of power over elections

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 8 of 11 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 15   Well Said 9   Supported 8  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H1 1/13/12

- Advertisement -

2) over any 1st Amendment challenge to mandating students' involuntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by the Pledge Protection Act, which passed in the House as H.R. 2028, 108th Cong., 150 Cong. Rec. H7478, but not the Senate.

Neither of these authoritarian efforts to impose thought control on school children had anything to do with political questions, intrusion on express legislative powers, installing plutocracy, or the survival of democracy. They both involved judicial recognition of individual liberty to be free of state religion or state mandated patriotic expression. Hence they were far less legitimate targets for the Exceptions Clause than would be the "money is speech" legal gimmick used by the Court for intruding on Congress' own assigned powers over election integrity.

But by enacting these bills each house of Congress has clearly established its interpretation of the Exceptions Clause as granting them very broad power to make exceptions to the First Amendment jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They simply lacked -- for good reason - the political support of the People to get these particular authoritarian applications of their undisputed power enacted.

The next question is, What has the Supreme Court itself said about Congress' Art III, Sec 2 power? The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Exceptions Clause to deny Congress the power to make exceptions to its appellate jurisdiction. For example, Congress originally left out of the Court's jurisdiction all criminal cases. In United States v. More , 7 U.S. (3 Ranch) 159 (1805) the Court held that Congress's failure to provide for appellate jurisdiction over federal criminal matters in the 1789 Judiciary Act barred such jurisdiction.

In a later case the Court made a sweeping statement supportive of Prof. Black's view: "By the constitution of the United States the Supreme Court  can exercise no appellate power unless it is conferred by act of Congress. ''  Barry v. Mercein 46 U.S. (5 How.) 103, 120-21  (1847). In In The Francis Wright,   105 U.S. 381, 385  -386 (1882), the Court elaborated on the source of appellate power: "What those powers shall be, and to what extent they shall be exercised, are, and always have been, proper subjects of legislative control.... Not only may whole classes of cases be kept out of the jurisdiction altogether, but particular classes of questions may be subjected to reexamination and review, while others are not.''

After the Civil War, when it feared that the Court might hold military reconstruction of the South unconstitutional in a pending case, Congress quickly repealed the statute on which the Court's jurisdiction depended. After hearing argument on the constitutionality of the repealing act, the Court in Ex parte McCardle , 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869) unanimously upheld the jurisdiction-stripping law and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, even though the writ of habeas corpus, jurisdiction over which is not subject to Art III stripping, was involved in the case.

More recently the Court rejected an attempt by Congress to strip the judiciary's authority over the inherently judicial power to issue a writ of habeas corpus. This power arises under the federal courts' writs jurisdiction, not the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Hence the question arose not under the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, Sec 2, Clause 2) but under jurisprudence involving the Constitution's Suspension Clause (Article I, Sec.  9, clause 2). The latter provision protects an individual right of habeas corpus secured by the Constitution subject to a single narrow exception that did not apply. But in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723 (2008), Scalia, J., wrote the dissenting opinion for the Roberts Court extremist bloc of four. These New Four Horsemen objected to the Court's invalidation of a statute that curtailed the federal courts' habeas jurisdiction in violation of the Suspension Clause. The four described the majority decision as the result of an "inflated notion of judicial supremacy," a critique that does not seem to trouble the extremist bloc when they repeatedly trespass on Congress' exclusive authority to regulate and judge elections.

Justice Scalia goes on to proclaim:"Our power to say what the law is is circumscribed by the limits of our statutorily and constitutionally conferred jurisdiction." Thus the most activist judges in interfering in elections are also the most extreme in upholding Congress' absolute authority to strip the Court' jurisdiction -- when that is needed to get the authoritarian result they want. Plutocrats see civil liberties for any but themselves as a nuisance for their hold on power. These four judges concede this judicial jurisdiction-stripping power in a case that went well beyond stripping of jurisdiction over political questions under the Exceptions Clause in order to re-balance the separation of legislative from judicial power. Habeas corpus is arguably the irreducible judicial power.

- Advertisement -

To summarize,

  1. The Exceptions Clause, Art, III, Sec 2, Cl. 2, expressly states that Congress has the broad power to make exceptions to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, other than in a few areas that are not relevant. There is no express statement elsewhere in the Constitution, as amended, that qualifies this congressional power over appeals to the Court. Any views to the contrary by unelected law professors are more political than legal. But even those views do not argue that Congress could not exercise its power for the purpose of restoring the political question doctrine. The Supreme Court itself upheld the political question doctrine as an essential constitutional restraint on its jurisdiction defining the appropriate separation of legislative from judicial power during most of its history, since the legendary Marbury case and consistently down to 1976.

  2. Congress has acted on their consistent interpretation that they can strip the appellate jurisdiction from the Court on First Amendment issues, as well as many other issues that are far less suitable targets for jurisdiction-stripping under the Exceptions Clause than would be political questions and maintenance of the well-established boundaries for the separation of powers concerning elections.

  3. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can strip its jurisdiction in comparably important areas. It has said it has no power to hear appeals that Congress has not itself given by statute. It has never ruled that Congress cannot strip jurisdiction under Article III by simply amending those statutes. To convince the Roberts 5 not to start now, the law stripping the Court's jurisdiction itself will need to contain very strong incentives, clearly threatening their impeachment and even the prosecution of justices who defy the law and exceed the scope of their constitutional authority by continuing to encroach upon Congress' legislative powers.

9. Enforcing the Exceptions Clause Against Judicial Supremacy

    An early Jeffersonian, Senator Giles, of Virginia, said in 1804 of Marbury v. Madison

    - Advertisement -

    "if the judges of the Supreme Court should dare, as they had done, to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, it was the undoubted right of the House of Representatives to impeach them, and of the Senate to remove them, for giving such opinions.... And a removal by impeachment was nothing more than a declaration by Congress to this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and if you are suffered to carry them into effect you will work the destruction of the nation. We want your offices, for the purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better."

    Hamilton supported this same view in Federalist 81.

    "There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by [impeachment]."

    The four most extreme judges among the Roberts 5 would be handicapped as hypocrites willing to distort rules to reach results for their favored class should they deny Congress' Exceptions Clause authority in the context of restoring the political question doctrine after upholding it in the far more extreme and unjustified context of suspending habeas corpus in Boumediene. There is no reason to believe they are above engaging in such hypocrisy, however.

    Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11


A creative thinker on matters of public policy and art, and a principal researcher. Current focus of work is on the strategies democracies can use to protect against overthrow by corruption, with immediate attention to the mess being made by (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Reversing Citizens United: stripping the Roberts 5 of power over elections

Five reasons why a constitutional amendment is the wrong way to get money out of politics

Roberts 5 strike another blow for plutocracy: Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett

Our corrupt politics is all about money: Reviewing Ezra Klein's NYRB Lessig review

Does the Same First Amendment Apply to the 1% and the 99%?

How not to make Congress more responsive to voters: the Congressional Reform Act of 2011 hoax


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
14 people are discussing this page, with 20 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

The systematic political disenfranchisement caus... by Larry Kachimba on Friday, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:41:38 AM
This is worthy of more exploration. A constitution... by RedBlueQuest on Friday, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:26:39 PM
This is absolutely the BEST article that I have re... by mainehonza on Friday, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:42:11 PM
Before you consider stripping the Supreme Court - ... by Scott Baker on Saturday, Jan 14, 2012 at 4:58:31 AM
or are deliberately attacking a straw man fo... by Larry Kachimba on Saturday, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:52:02 PM
I get 11 browser pages here, and it doesn't seem t... by Maxwell on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 2:52:52 PM
The article goes to great length - too great ... by Larry Kachimba on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:55:16 AM
But the status quo is not sustainable after the hi... by Michael Hager on Monday, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:48:47 AM
section 2, clause 2, against Citizens United in No... by Richard Girard on Saturday, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:11:27 PM
This article is exemplary. It is something James M... by martin weiss on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:20:50 PM
Thank you, Larry, for a thoughtfully detailed, if ... by Vernon Huffman on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:33:36 PM
Your question, of course, follows from the analysi... by Larry Kachimba on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 2:17:50 PM
I was in such a hurry on Saturday, I forgot the mo... by Richard Girard on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:40:25 PM
Remember to visit the web... by Jerry Morgan on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:56:40 PM
Learn more at MOP... by Jerry Morgan on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 8:59:39 PM
Please read Larry Kachimba's article, Reversing Ci... by Rowdy on Monday, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:02:02 PM
Just a comment to thank Larry Kachimba for his in ... by Tim Sanders on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:29:53 PM
politics on this site were to follow Tim's le... by Larry Kachimba on Saturday, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:02:57 PM
Congress could gut "Citizens United" without offic... by John Flanery on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:25:29 PM
Somehow, integrity must be returned to the Supreme... by Gene Engene on Saturday, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:55:53 PM