There are a couple of attempts going on to prevent the federal courts from being able to review any laws dealing with particular issues. Tired of the courts striking down violations of the Constitution, some Republicans don't want the courts to have any say at all anymore. These aren't conservative Republicans, these are radical Republicans advocating lawlessness.

Writing for BuzzFlash, Maureen Farrell quotes Jay Bookman:

If Congress has the authority to tell the Supreme Court that certain issues are off-limits, it would give legislators a free hand to do whatever they wished, without worrying about whether it violated the Constitution. The whole idea of a separation of powers could be rendered null and void if that happened.

And unfortunately, it could. The provision in question, Article III, Section 2, gives the federal courts the power to decide a broad range of cases, including challenges to the constitutionality of federal laws. However, it also grants the courts that power "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Theoretically, that allows Congress to pass a law -- say, making it a felony to criticize members of Congress -- and then forbid the courts to review such a law. It could pass a law making Christianity the national religion, and bar the courts from hearing a challenge. It could allow government to tap our phones without a warrant, or toss dissidents into prison without trial, and refuse to allow the courts to intervene.

That's why the provision has remained obscure and largely untested. Previous generations of politicians, even in the heat of intense battle, have understood and respected the potential damage it could do. They saw it as a Pandora's box that once opened could threaten not just our constitutional liberties but the whole concept of a balance of powers among the judicial, legislative and executive branches.

Farrell goes on to write:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee reminded fellow Congressmen that had such a law passed in the 1950s, there would be no Brown v. Board of Education and no desegregation in public schools. Rep. Carolyn Maloney said the bill "would deny judicial review to an entire class of citizens" and "is willing to trample on our Constitution in order to do so."

Not everyone is inclined to fret about constitutional freedoms and civil liberties, however. In fact, those diligently working to transform America into a Christian nation believe that their Biblical world view trumps other concerns. In an Oct. 6, 2003 op-ed in the Washington Times, former Rep. William E. Dannemeyer openly advocated using this tact. "Congress should use Article III, Section 2, clause of the U.S. Constitution to recover what has been stolen," he wrote, listing egregious acts such as: "Enacting a wall of separation between church and state; Banning nondenominational prayer from public schools; Removing the Ten Commandments from public school walls; and Removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance" as primary transgressions.

What we need to understand about this is that the Constitution basically creates boundaries beyond which lawmakers are not allowed to go — it prevents them, for example, from outlawing a religion just as regular people are prevented from committing burglary. Thus, the Constitution serves as a sort of law for the lawmakers, providing structure for and limits on the freedom they have.

Republican backers of any measure to remove certain legislative issues from the courts’ jurisdiction are, therefore, attempting to change the rules and have a say on what actions of theirs will be constrained by the laws and which won’t. It’s tantamount to people deciding that they can’t be charged with burglary when the house is owned by people of one race, only when if the house if owned by people of another race.

In effect, then, these lawmakers are advocating lawlessness for themselves. They are insisting that they need not be constrained by any rules or structures greater than themselves — they will pass whatever laws they see fit and if they decide that no other branch of the government is allowed to judge them, then that’s what will happen.

Such unchecked power is very, very dangerous. Republican backers of such laws have crossed the line and, as far as I am concerned, rendered themselves unfit for public office. This isn’t a conservative/liberal matter because pushing lawlessness is not under any circumstances a “conservative” value. Real conservatives value the rule of law and the constraints of traditional structures which ensure that power and authority aren’t abused. Genuine conservatives wouldn’t advocate lawlessness; this is part of the agenda of the radical right — people who are seeking to undermine liberty and freedom in pursuit of a narrow, theocratic agenda.

Read More:

• 2004 Elections
• Election Polls
• George W. Bush
• John Kerry