[Mb-civic] NYTimes.com Article: A Radical Assault on the Constitution

[michael at intrafi.com]

The article below from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by michael at intrafi.com.



/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

GARDEN STATE: IN NY & LA WEDNESDAY & SELECT THEATERS AUGUST 6

GARDEN STATE stars Zach Braff, Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard
and Ian Holm.  NEWSWEEK's David Ansen says "Writer-Director Zach
Braff has a genuine filmmaker's eye and is loaded with talent."
Watch the teaser trailer that has all of America buzzing and
talk back with Zach Braff on the Garden State Blog at:

http://www.foxsearchlight.com/gardenstate/index_nyt.html

\----------------------------------------------------------/


A Radical Assault on the Constitution

July 24, 2004
 


 

Majorities that are frustrated when courts stand up for
minority rights have occasionally tried to strip them of
the power to do so. This week, the House voted to deny the
federal courts the ability to decide a key constitutional
issue involving gay marriage. Such a law would upset the
system of checks and balances and threaten all minority
groups. It is critical that the Senate reject it. 

The Marriage Protection Act, which was passed by the House,
233-to-194, would bar federal courts from hearing
challenges to parts of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
That law says states do not need to recognize same-sex
marriages conducted in other states. Gay marriage opponents
fear that the courts will hold that this violates the
constitutional requirement that states recognize the legal
actions of other states. 

The House's solution, stripping the federal courts of
power, is one that opponents of civil rights and civil
liberties have been drawn to in the past. Opponents of
court-ordered busing and supporters of school prayer tried
it. But even at the height of the backlash against the
civil rights movement, Congress never passed a law that
completely insulated a federal law from Supreme Court
review. 

This radical approach would allow Congress to revoke the
courts' ability to guard constitutional freedoms of all
kinds. And although gays are the subject of this bill,
other minority groups could easily find themselves the
target of future ones. 

The House vote could be dismissed as election-year
politics. It's highly unlikely the Senate will go along,
and even if it did, there is good reason to believe the law
would itself be declared unconstitutional. Still, even one
house of Congress backing this sort of assault on the
federal judiciary is an outrage. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/24/opinion/24sat2.html?ex=1091688021&ei=1&en=5fc8d9e91a3e6eb7


---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales at nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help at nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company