Constitutional Law-- Class Synopsis

I'd like to try and explain a little about the issues that we've been delving into over the past week of Constitutional Law. First of all, I'd like to just say that my professor, Dean Tuomala, is brilliant and his approach is unique in that he challenges a lot of the common misconceptions of Constitutional Law. (In other words, almost everyone has been conditioned to accept an incorrect reading of the Constitution itself. We have done this because we have fundamentally escaped and forsaken the notion of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God as outlined in our Declaration of Independence. We have ignored the fact that there is a higher law and higher standard set forth by God, acknowledged by our founders, that we are to reflect in our legal system...)   Dean Tuomala teaches in a manner that requires us to push our minds and reach for understanding, and instead of spoon feeding us, he is teaching us to think in a way that challenges the status quo of modern constitutional law.

Also, for readers who "wondered" at my self-proclaimed ignorance today, I should say at this time, that when in this class, we don't simply take our text book and brief cases and move on... we question the very basis for everything that is taught and most of the time, come away finding that the textbook got it wrong, or ignored key issues. I am confident in my basic understanding of Constitutional Law and in the fact that this document must be closely studied, as should the original intent of our founding fathers so that we may maintain it.  I fear that we have not and therefore the posts on this blog will seem most likely out of place when compared to most standard Constitutional Law Classes.

It is important that we understand judicial powers and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Originally, there were three types of questions that courts would address: Federal Questions, General Principles of Law, and State Questions. After the Erie decision, the "General Principles" category disappeared, because the court ruled away the notion of a Higher Law, set forth by God. We were left at this time to man's own reasoning and intellect, and hence find ourselves relying heavily on case precedent, and evolutionary approaches to law, allowing us to drift far away from the rule of law and undermine very design and purpose of our United States Constitution. I have been disdainful of the Erie doctrine since studying it in Civil Procedure 1 last year. I agree with Dean Tuomala when he says that the Erie decision was the "blackest mark of U.S. judicial history." I could write volumes on the implications of Erie, but I'll have to save that for later.

Continuing on....

Where there is a federal question, federal courts have the judicial power of the United States. For a state court to try a federal question, they have a duty to apply federal law. The same holds true for state questions. In diversity cases (cases involving state questions, but citizens of different states pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332) federal courts have a duty to apply state law, not judicial power. The difference is that judicial power vest the power in the court the authority of interpretation. ("authoritative interpretation.")

With this as a basis for what I'm about to write about, consider the following proposition to congress:

"No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag... violates the [First Amendment]."

Doesn't that sound like a well-meaning thing? What good conservative wouldn't jump for joy at this thought? I wouldn't. And here's why:

This is an unconstitutional proposition, divesting power in an unconstitutional manner because it does not distinguish between federal question cases and state question cases that fall under diversity jurisdiction. This bill was written using Article 3, §2, clause 2 which describes federal court's jurisdiction and says that Congress may make exceptions. For Congress to except cases that arise under federal question would be unconstitutionally divesting power from the Supreme Court. According to the Constitution, the judicial power vested as soon as it was created, as well as legislative, and executive branches, vests at their creation. The only appropriate method would be to amend the Constitution and the only things that can be excepted by Congress are issues of state law.

I think that's all I can say for now, because I have to get TONS of other things done. I did not intend to write this much... I've said that before. :)

Enjoy and let your mind grow.