Cannon Introduces Legislation to Return Local Control to Utah Parents and Protect Children from Pornogrpahy

Press Release

CANNON INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO RETURN LOCAL CONTROL TO UTAH PARENTS AND PROTECT CHILDREN FROM PORNOGRPAHY

Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT) today introduced legislation removing challenges to state anti-pornography laws from federal courts. Upon introducing the legislation, Congressman Cannon said,

"The Supreme Court consistently holds that the moral ‘standards of the community' define what is obscene. It makes sense that the people of Utah, through their courts, be the final arbiters of what is morally acceptable. For too long, federal courts have created a dangerous climate for our children by overturning important decisions of state courts that restrict pornography consumption and distribution within its borders. Pornographers should not be able to shop for a federal judge in California with the authority to tell Utahns what is and what is not, obscene and unacceptable."

Cannon continued, "There is persuasive historical precedent for limiting jurisdiction. In no way does this legislation deny anyone his day in court. Instead, it simply shifts that decision from the federal court system, to the system closest to the people of Utah and other states."

Under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, "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." In addition, Article III, Section 1, gives Congress the authority to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court and by implication, define their jurisdiction. (This power is also found in Article I, Section 8)

The Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that the Congress has the authority to strip appellate jurisdiction from federal courts in cases not involving the cases explicitly granted to the Court in the Constitution. (Found in Article III, Section 2. See also Justice Joseph Story's writings and opinions, esp. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee).

In National Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Co., 337 U.S. 582 (1949) at 655, Justice Felix Frankfurter held, "Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred."

In 1881, Chief Justice Waite declared, "While the appellate power of this Court extends to all cases within the judicial power of the United States, actual jurisdiction is confined within such limits as Congress sees fit to describe. What these powers shall be, and to what extent they shall be exercised, are, and always have been, proper subjects of legislative control." (See Francis Wright Case, 105 U.S. 381 (1881) at 386)

In addition, The Supreme Court has only invalidated a Congressional withdrawal of jurisdiction once, in United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871). However, that case dealt exclusively with a limitation on an enumerated area of jurisdiction explicitly granted to the Supreme Court under Article III, Section 2.

Source