One of the riders provides: "None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to enforce the judgment in Newdow v. U.S. Congress 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir.
2002)."
The other
provides: "None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to
enforce the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit in Glassroth v. Moore, decided July 1, 2003 or Glassroth v. Moore, 229
F. Supp. 2d 1067 (M. D. Ala. 2002)."
Assuming either or both were enacted into law, it's doubtful
that they would be unconstitutional -- even in the view of someone who, for
instance, believes that jurisdiction-stripping is unconstitutional. The
riders do not prohibit the Federal Government from using funds other
than those "appropriated in this Act" to enforce the judgments, and do
not purport to absolutely prohibit any entity (e.g., the
Department of Justice) from enforcing the judgments -- let alone prohibit every
possible enforcement entity, federal and state, executive and judicial, from
enforcing the judgments. If Congress passed a law completely precluding
any means of enforcement, only then would the statute implicate the classic, and
unresolved, questions discussed by, e.g., Sager, Fallon &
Meltzer, etc.
Marty Lederman
|
- Q for Next Year's Exam? Jonathan H. Adler
- Re: Q for Next Year's Exam? Marty Lederman
- Re: Q for Next Year's Exam? Jonathan L. Entin
- Re: Q for Next Year's Exam? Marty Lederman