https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.
Thanks, Kiiid.
Dream on.
Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting.
Unconstitutional. Redistributing is the province of the states.
What is it that makes you think the proposed tribunal would violate Article III?
Read it
I quoted it. I read it. I rebutted your unformed claim.
Being kind i would say you ' misread' Article III.
So, no reading it does not provide guidance for why Article III would be violated.
If you want to make a claim to be discussing, provide something of substance to support your argument, given that Congress has the power to create lower courts and has done so, including courts with restricted purview.
As for your bizarre contention that Congress does not get to weigh in on the redistricting process, I am pretty sure the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and attendant court cases testing it like South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966) and Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969) put your argument to rest. Even the comparatively recent SCOTUS case that wiped out a bunch of oversight stupidly did not declare that the concepts that required them were unconstitutional, just the use of antiquated data was.
Let me know when you want to add bananas, apricots, and moonbeams to the above apples and oranges stupidity.
Of course you would say I misread it - but you would offer no explanation or citation for why your interpretation of the (pretty clear) language is right and mine is wrong. You would just say that mine is wrong.
Congress is allowed to establish inferior courts without more permission from the Constitution than is already offered. Quotation presented by me. You claim I am wrong, but not why or how.
Congress is allowed to establish guidelines on how redistricting is done, as SCOTUS has already ruled. Citations offered by me. None refuted by you. No counter citations presented by you.
Yes, SCOTUS retains the ability to hear appeals of those lower courts, including the one proposed in HR1.
Still waiting for you to spell out your evidence to support your (bogus) claim.
And ditto your description of the Voting Rights Act as about apples and oranges, but sans explanations for why you think they don't apply.
You're really bad at this argument thing, aren't you?!
Poll
5 (45.5%)