Rep. Istook trying to overrule Marbury v. Madison
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Fri Jul 30 17:34:52 PDT 2004
Well, I suspect not exactly *trying* to -- I doubt that his
people even thought about this point -- but it sure seems contrary to
the less famous holding of Marbury. Here's HR 4892, introduced by
Istook and 34 other Representatives; note especially (b)(1):
(a) IN GENERAL- Marriage in the United States shall consist only of
the union of a man and a woman.
(1) U.S. SUPREME COURT- The Supreme Court of the United States shall
have original jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim arising under
(2) OTHER COURTS- Except as provided in paragraph (1), no Federal or
State court shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine a claim arising
under this section.
Of course, it's also not clear just what (b)(2) means -- does it
mean that any *defense* raised under (a), which is the most likely use
of (a), can't be considered by any court? Or does the statute
contemplate that someone could file an affirmative claim based on (a),
in the U.S. Supreme Court, to get a same-sex marriage invalidated?
Or am I missing something?
More information about the Conlawprof