Another view, from a reader:
Jonah,
With respect to your posting on the corner regarding the person who would not wish to amend the constitution for an FMA amendment, the writer states, “Another way to battle judicial activism would be to amend the Constitution to take away judicial review on Constitutional matters. I do not think that would be a wise amendment, but it would be an appropriate thing to do by Constitutional amendment.” Well, the writer may not think it a wise thing to do, but the founding fathers did and there’s no need to amend the constitution to restrict the Supreme Court or any federal court’s appellate jurisdiction – it’s already in the Constitution.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 provides, “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. (emphasis added)” In other words, only in the above mentioned cases does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction (e.g., Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party) and Congress has the right to remove or restrict appellate jurisdiction in all other matters as it sees fit, i.e., Congress could remove the right of the U.S. Supreme Court or any federal court from hearing appeals on abortion cases if it wanted or gay marriage decisions for that matter.
I’m not even going to take the time to explain why the writer is as misinformed on the need for the FMA or why it’s not remotely similar to prohibition, when it’s pretty clear he’s ignorant of basic principles of Constitutional law. If people would just take the time to read the damn thing…….
Regards,
[Name withheld]