Attack Update: January 5, 2007

• The Radical: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX); Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX); Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC)
• The Attack: Rep. Ron Paul introduces the “We the People Act,” which would strip jurisdiction from federal courts in cases that address state laws or policies related to issues of religious liberty and “privacy.”
• These cases would include ones involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. In his introductory remarks, Rep. Paul states that the bill would protect the “traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.”
• Paul continues: “Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.” (emphasis added)
• The Significance: The “We the People Act” is yet another example of jurisdiction-stripping legislation that attempts to prevent federal courts from deciding constitutional matters properly before them. This legislation is not only hopelessly vague about which matters it seeks to prohibit federal courts from hearing, but it also ignores the fact that most cases deal with several subject matters, only one of which may deal with matters of religious liberty or “privacy.” Furthermore, despite these shortcomings, the bill threatens judges with impeachment and removal if the proposed act is violated. In addition, Rep. Paul’s relatively short introductory remarks are still filled with contradictions: 1) federal courts should not speak on issues of privacy, yet they must acknowledge the (heterosexual) right of “private individuals interacting in civil institutions;” 2) federal courts should not impose a definition of marriage on the people, yet the public has been subjected to a “socially engineered” definition of marriage by so-called “traditional” conservative values; 3) “congressmen” should not impose a definition of marriage on the people, yet Rep. Paul is trying to do exactly that with this legislation, and Congress has already done so through the Defense of Marriage Act. Although the “We the People Act” has no chance of being passed by the 110th Congress, it shows that the federal judiciary is still subject to persistent and dangerous attacks by radical politicians.