Question about HR 313 - Marriage Protection Act

[livinginphotographs]

From the People for the American Way website:

"The “Marriage Protection Act” – HR 3313 – would bar federal courts from hearing challenges to the “full faith and credit” provision of the 1996 federal “Defense of Marriage Act.”"

My question is this: how could this law, if passed, possibly survive? Since when has Congress been able to decide what cases a court could or could not hear? Scalia notwithstanding, I just don't see how this law could not be stricken down once it's challenged.

Is there any precedent for this that anyone knows of?

[Plaid Adder]

1. I am not a lawyer, but

I very much doubt this thing would survive a challenge. Since when can you just declare that a federal statute cannot be challenged on constitutional grounds?

One thing that has become obvious about the anti-same-sex-marriage folks is that they have some lawyers on staff who are, depending on your POV, either very creative or totally batshit crazy. Their last-ditch efforts to stop the Massachusetts supreme court's decision from being implemented were pretty funny. I don't know how many sponsors HR 3313 has, but I woudl be surprised if this thing survived the attempt to pass it.

Then again, this administration has surprised me a lot over the past 4 years.

Sigh,

The Plaid Adder

[donco6]

2. There's just no way.

Utterly unconstitutional on so many levels. Doesn't have a chance in hell of surviving, IMO.

However, it'll be useful for a tally - "Did you know YOUR representative voted AGAINST the marriage act?" blah blah.

[Dookus]

3. It is NOT utterly unconstitutional

it's an area that hasn't been decided. The constitution appears to say it's possible:

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:

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.

As far as I know, this has never been tried and no court has ruled on what exactly is permissible. Now, I BELIEVE that the SC would rule against such an attempt as a blatant violation of its core decision in Marbury v Madison, but there's no guarantee.

[livinginphotographs]

4. I saw on another thread here...

Which made the point that the SCOTUS would never rule in favor of something that basically makes them useless.

It seems to me that this law, if upheld, could make the entire Bill of Rights null and void.