We the People Act — stupid sometimes

Last November Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas introduced H.R. 4379, the We the People Act, to protect us from an out of control federal judiciary.

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).

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

Paul proposes this bill because, as he sees it, the federal courts “have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment.” But “free exercise or establishment of religion”? Hello? Ever hear of the U.S. Constitution, specifically its First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So Paul proposes, by legislation, to gut the First Amendment to “return” free exercise or establishment of religion issues to the states. I guess we need to remind Paul how to amend the constitution.

Unfortunately, the bill gets worse.

SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.

Looks like Paul forgot the Fourteenth Amendment, too.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [* * *]

Someone get Paul a Constitution.

Hat tip: Danny Carlton, alias “JackLewis.Net”.

Author: Brent Logan

Engineer. Lawyer. WordPress geek. Longboarder. Blood donor. Photographer. More about Brent.

2 thoughts on “We the People Act — stupid sometimes”

  1. You do not understand the context of the word establishment. In the constitution it is referring to the establishment of a state religion, in Ron Paul’s bill it is referring to religion’s “establishment” (the more traditional sense of the word). You totally don’t get anything about the 14th amendment and the bill. Gosh I’m sorry to be so harsh but it’s true. Basically the bill says that these legislating-type rulings are invalid, and can’t be used as precedent which has nothing to do with states not being allowed to pass laws that infringe on rights (like a segregation law for example). You fail at comprehension.

  2. Andrew, sorry to be so dense in the presence of a constitutional scholar, but you’ll need to clarify your definitions of “establishment” a little better for me to catch your distinction.

    While you’re at it, explain to me how this legislation limits its applicability to “legislating-type” rulings as opposed to those that would be interpreting the First Amendment. I see no such limitation or distinction.

    You say it would make rulings invalid. Which ones? Those that have already occurred? Going back how far?

    Please bless me with your comprehension.

    Oh, and please vote for Ron Paul. You deserve each other.

Comments are closed.