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  
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:44 PM
Subject: Q for Next Year's Exam?

Rep. Hoestetler (R-IN) has issued a press release claiming the House adopted amendments to the judicial appropriations bill that "would block federal funds from being used to enforce court decisions that found the use of 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional and ordered the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse."
 
The press release in question is here:
I have not yet looked at the text of the amendment in question.
 
Any thoughts?
 
JHA
 
-------
Jonathan H. Adler
Assistant Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
11075 East Boulevard
Cleveland, OH 44106
ph) 216-368-2535
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

Reply via email to