(1) proposes amending the US Constitution, which requires 2/3 of each chamber of Congress plus 3/4 of the states to ratify to actually go into effect, in order to remedy the Supreme Court's activism on this subject;
(2) says that she "respect[s] the Court's authority to rule on this issue." --implying she does not intend to push for Congress to use its power to limit the Court's appellate jurisdiction regarding marriage, a power specifically granted in Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution, and one which would only require a majority vote in each house of Congress, or in the case of a veto, a 2/3 vote in each house. Either way, it's significantly less difficult than amending the US Constitution to supposedly stop the Court from abusing power and often ignoring the Constitution.
This seems to be a good example of offering a false solution. This is like arguing that we should climb a mountain to get to the enemy when we could simply meet them in the meadow and be ready to do battle on our own terms. Rather than using the Constitutional power Congress already has to check the Court, we'll imply that the Constitution itself needs correction. Rep. Noem "disagree[s] with [the Court's] decision to strike down portions of DOMA." OK, fine... but she doesn't want to limit their authority in a relatively simple manner? Instead, we should make marriage officially part of the Federal Constitution? Often, as we know, amendments have unintended consequences. Here's my letter and hers in response.
Dear Rep. Noem:
On April 28 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on same-sex marriage regarding two questions: 1. Does the 14th Amendment require states to license same-sex marriages? and 2. Does it require them to recognize those marriages performed in other states?
The justices' ruling is expected in late June. The ruling is expected to determine whether same-sex marriage becomes legal nationwide or whether states retain the authority to ban it.
On April 22 Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced his bill, Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015, that would strip federal courts and the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases related to marriage.
King's bill has two main provisions:
(a) JURISDICTION. No court created by an Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage
(b) FUNDING. No Federal funds may be used for any litigation in, or the enforcement of any order or judgment by, any court created by an Act of Congress, on any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage.
King's bill can accomplish this because he is making use of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states:
'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.'
Please help get the Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015 passed in both the House and the Senate.
Sincerely,
Eldon Stahl
Here's the response I received:
May 20, 2015
Dear Eldon,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
I agreed with DOMA's definition of marriage and am a strong supporter of protecting traditional marriage and family. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.J.RES 51, which would amend the Constitution to define marriage as consisting of the union between one man and one woman.
As you may know, on June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-4 decision that DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. While I respect the Court's authority to rule on this issue, I disagree with their decision to strike down portions of DOMA. The American people, through their elected representatives, defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Like you, I remain committed to defending traditional marriage.
Thanks again for reaching out to my office. Please let me know whenever I can be of assistance. I encourage you to visit my website noem.house.gov, or click here to sign up for my monthly newsletter to get more information on the latest congressional news important to South Dakota.
