Branstad noted that agriculture is in the business of nourishing bodies and a major engine for job creation and economic growth.  In 1983, with Iowa in the depth of an agricultural recession, its 115,000 farmers produced economic value of $1.98 billion on 33.7 million acres of farmland.  Today, Iowa’s 92,600 farmers are producing crops and livestock on 30.8 million acres.

“In 2008, this engine of economic growth created $26.3 billion in agriculture production value in the state,” said Branstad. “Currently, increased federal and state regulatory actions have created an environment non-supportive of increased productivity, innovation and job creation.  The lack of regulatory stability is driving business out of the state and causing those who remain to limit or eliminate additional investment in their businesses and employees.”

Gov. Branstad’s proposal includes:

1.       Better use of current resources through technology and partnerships

2.       Responsible regulation

3.       Sustainable Entrepreneurship

4.       A Five-Year Strategic Vision and Implementation Plan

““In order to move agriculture forward we must address and develop a plan to enhance and invest in infrastructure state wide which will allow us to better transmit, handle, store, transport and transfer the increased production of agricultural crops, renewables, energy and value-added products,” said Branstad.

The Branstad Plan

GOAL

Iowa will lead the world in agriculture, doubling production of our crops and value-added products while increasing personal income, creating value and creating jobs.

DEFINING THE CHALLENGE

With the world population approaching 9 billion, we must double food production by 20501. As a world agriculture leader, Iowa must double our own production to feed Iowans and people around the world. Iowa’s agricultural system will be challenged to produce more with less in a manner that protects our natural resources of land, water and people.

Agriculture is in the business of nourishing bodies and a major engine for job creation and economic growth.    In 1983, with Iowa in the depth of an agricultural recession, its 115,000 farmers produced economic value of $1.98 billion on 33.7 million acres of farmland. Today, Iowa’s 92,600 farmers are producing crops and livestock on 30.8 million acres.2 While the number of farmers and acres dedicated to agricultural production has declined, Iowa’s farmers have never been more productive. In 2008, this engine of economic growth created $26.3 billion in agriculture production value in the state.3 Currently, increased federal and state regulatory actions have created an environment non-supportive of increased productivity, innovation and job creation. The lack of regulatory stability is driving business out of the state and causing those who remain to limit or eliminate additional investment in their businesses and employees.

In order to move agriculture forward we must address and develop a plan to enhance and invest in infrastructure state wide which will allow us to better transmit, handle, store, transport and transfer the increased production of agricultural crops, renewables, energy and value-added products.

DEFINING THE SOLUTION

Iowa agriculture will lead the state back in our economic recovery. As a world leader in agricultural production, a whole- system approach is needed once again to double our production of food and value-added products by 2050. Governor Branstad will work with the best and brightest agricultural minds in Iowa to create and implement a Five-Year Strategic Vision and Implementation Plan for agriculture that will incorporate research and development, technology utilization, a stable and responsible regulatory system and create an enhanced infrastructure system. This system will better handle, store, transport and transfer the increased production of agricultural crops, renewables, energy and value-added products across the state and the world.

Agriculture is about growing jobs. Utilizing Iowa’s geographic strategic advantage, it is imperative that we work closely with universities and community colleges as they educate the next generation who will manage the ag production system from the farms to manufacturing to processing. It is necessary to support the research needed to develop and discover technology that will allow agriculture to continue as a great economic driver. Access to technology allows farmers to do well and do good – using science and technology to respond to the agricultural challenge to produce more while protecting our environment and maximizing Iowa’s natural resources. We must create a regulatory system that is science-based, responsible and stable to support a business climate that doubles agricultural production.
Governor Branstad understands the importance of creating an environment that supports and nourishes an entrepreneurial spirit that will create jobs and increase a family’s income while creating value. One of Iowa’s greatest attributes has been the ability to cultivate an individual’s talents and apply them to new technologies that will ultimately feed, fuel and clothe a growing global population. Creating and supporting an attitude and atmosphere that respects people who take risks and exhibit self-responsibility begins at the top and must be encouraged at every level.

GOVERNOR BRANSTAD PROPOSES

Better use of current resources through technology and partnerships.

• Iowa agriculture is a success story of modernization. That modernization is fueled by technology and ingenuity, something in which we must continue to support and invest. In addition to better seeds and better livestock, technology offers and supports better management practices to protect our land and natural resources.

• Partnerships between universities, community colleges and private businesses must be encouraged and supported. Government’s role is to aid– and in some cases–get out of the way so innovation and technology will grow and not be strangled.

• There is growing demand among Iowa’s small town and urban people to buy food that’s grown close to home, close enough that they can get to know the farm families who produce it. This trend produces a gateway to farming for young people with more labor than capital available, an entrepreneurial opportunity for farm and restaurant enterprises, an increase in ag-related jobs, and an increase in quality of life for Iowans in general.

Responsible regulation

Provide a better balance of regulation v. job creation

• A stable regulatory environment supports and enhances job creation and a growing business climate. A farmer / businessman should have confidence that a regulation will not change in 18 months or two weeks. When the environment is stable, people are willing to invest in jobs and business investment for growth. Responsible, stable regulation will not strangle growth, but incent it.

Expedite and clarify the regulatory process

• A concise, transparent, science-based regulatory permit process is imperative for an active and successful business climate.
• There is a need to expedite the permitting process for agriculture production if all science-based criteria have been met.

Remove the ‘gotcha mentality’ of regulatory process.

• This is a regulatory leadership issue. Create an atmosphere that respects and supports people who take risks and exhibit self-responsibility. Governor Branstad supports and will demand an attitude change that emphasizes a ‘how can we help’ mentality rather than a focus of looking for problems first, while at the same time supporting a fair and responsible business environment.

Reduce unnecessary environmental litigation

• Excessive environmental litigation adds risks and costs for production agriculture and hinders growth and job creation. It creates delays in everything from building a new road or bridge, siting a new ethanol plant or preventing new ag products from coming to market even though the safety of the products have never been questioned.

Sustainable Entrepreneurship

• Inspired, charismatic leadership is required to create a business climate that incents, supports, and celebrates those who have a vision, are willing to take a risk and create new jobs and production opportunities.

• A culture that supports the creation of jobs, creates value and creates wealth by raising family incomes is the engine for growth.

• Partner with business leaders and innovators, community colleges and university resources to create an easily-accessed mentoring corps and to support an Iowa entrepreneurial business climate.

• Iowa must continue to support and enhance agriculture opportunities that offer a direct link to consumers and add economic and social value. Iowa-based businesses such as wineries, dairies, cheese makers, and ‘pick your own’ orchards and gardens are springing up all over Iowa. We must also support and encourage agri-tourism opportunities like farmers’ markets, autumn corn mazes and other season- specific opportunities where consumers have direct contact with producers.

Five-Year Strategic Vision and Implementation Plan

• Governor Branstad will provide the leadership needed to bring together the best minds to develop a Five-Year Strategic and Implementation Plan for agriculture. This plan will address systems to better handle, store, transport and transfer the increased production of agricultural crops, renewables, energy and value-added products. Infrastructure systems such as rail line opportunities, road systems for the transportation of grain, the transmission of wind power, and increasing broadband capability should be considered.

Can the federal government exceed its constitutional limitations simply by making a treaty that gives it that power?  This question, which has been debated since the Constitution’s ratification, has taken on a greater urgency over fears that the Senate may yet try to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) this year before a new Senate takes office in January

The UNCRC has been signed by every single country in the United Nations except for the United States and Somalia.  President Clinton signed it in 1995 but never presented it to the Senate due to opposition from conservatives who argued that the treaty violated the rights of parents by subjecting such prerogatives to “the best interest of the child.”  President Obama, citing our failure to ratify the treaty as embarrassing, has promised to send it to the Senate for ratification.

But no where in the Constitution does it give the federal government any power to regulate intimate family decisions.  Of the limited, enumerated powers listed in that document, none of them give the federal government the authority to interfere with the parent-child relationship in any way.  With the exception of the Fourteenth Amendment, Washington lacks the ability to enter into a human rights treaty establishing the civil, political, economic, and social rights of anyone, children or otherwise.

Proponents of the UNCRC and other similar treaties argue that the Constitution does not place any restrictions on the ability of the federal government to enter into a treaty.  For instance, then-Secretary of State John Foster Dulles infamously stated in 1952 that:  “Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights.”

Tragically, Secretary Dulles did not reach this conclusion out of a vacuum.  Years before Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Missouri v. Holland (1920), had upheld a treaty that regulated the hunting of migratory birds because, according to the Court, a treaty could provide Congress with the power to regulate an area that the Constitution otherwise denied it.  The Court later affirmed this theory in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936).

The Supreme Court finally reversed direction in Reid v. Covert (1957) when it ruled that “no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution…There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with provisions of the Constitution.”

The cause for so much confusion over the issue is the language of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI.  The Clause proclaims that all “Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution…] shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”  Because treaties were declared to be the supreme law of the land only if they were made “under the Authority of the United States” rather than pursuant to the Constitution, many have argued throughout the years that the federal government’s treaty making power was not bound by the Constitution.

But, as the Reid Court noted, “the reason treaties were not limited to those made in ‘pursuance’ of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect.”

As those who drafted and ratified the Constitution made clear, the phrase “under the Authority of the United States” did not mean treaties could be made that violated the Constitution.  At the Virginia ratifying convention, Governor Edmund Randolph responded to the fears of Patrick Henry and George Mason over the treaty making power by arguing that, “[b]eing creatures of that Constitution, can [the President and Senate] destroy it?”

George Nicholas agreed, contending that the federal government can “make no treaty which shall be repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, or inconsistent with the delegated powers.”  Joining him, James Madison stated:  “Here, the supremacy of a treaty is contrasted with the supremacy of the laws of the states.  It cannot be otherwise supreme.”

Thomas Jefferson argued that “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treatymaking to be boundless.  If it is, then we have no Constitution.”  Elsewhere, Jefferson stated that “surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

Alexander Hamilton, nationalist though he was, argued that the “only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties, is that it shall not change the Constitution…”  Later, he wrote that “[a] treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.”

The power of the federal government to enter into treaties with other nations is limited to those specific, enumerated powers given to it by the Constitution.  If that document does not grant the federal government the authority to regulate in a particular area, then it is powerless to accomplish such a feat by its treaty making power.  The ability to ratify treaties simply does not grant the President and Senate the authority to rewrite and supersede the Constitution absent the amendment process.

I’ll just let you know who it is, it’s Ed Rendell – Now Give Me My Tickets!

Please join me in entering this contest.

This year’s JJ speaker was born in New York City in the mid 20th century

Answer: Born January 5, 1944

This year’s speaker has never attended or spoken at our Jefferson Jackson Dinner

Answer: Yep

This person made a cameo appearance on-screen in a blockbuster hit of the 90s.

Answer: Well of course it’s a film about homosexuals. Rendell was in the movie Philadelphia.

This person has never worked for Saturday Night Live and is not Rudy Giuliani (Al Franken, though born in NYC, had already been eliminated as a past JJ speaker.)

Answer: OK, it’s not Alec Baldwin, who was and born in New York, damn.

This person is an avid sports fan.

Answer: Rendell is a big Philly’s fan.

This person served six years in the U.S. Army Reserve.

Answer: 1968-1974

This person is married with one son.

Wife: Marjorie Rendell

Son: Jesse

This person has held local, statewide and national office in their public career.

Local – District Attorney and Mayor
Statewide – Governor
National – DNC Chair, kinda weak don’t you think?

This person endorsed Hillary Clinton in her bid for President in 2008.

Answer: Rendell Endorsed Hillary

This person is married to a federal judge.

Answer: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. – Nominated by Bill Clinton.

Rees was also classified as a moderate, and as the campaign drew on, it became more and more apparent  that Rees’ views on everything from cap and trade to gay marriage were out of step with most Republican voters.

Still, Rees was respected by his primary voters for the way that he presented himself out to the voters.  While most Republicans disagreed with his positions on the issues, they appreciated Rees’ honesty and the way he approached his campaign.  Unfortunately, Mark Rees’s honesty is now being questioned after he endorsed Congressman Leonard Boswell, the incumbent Democrat, over Brad Zaun yesterday.

Rees was one of six candidates who participated in a candidate forum sponsored by IowaPolitics.com.  In the forum, all of the candidates were asked if they would support the eventual nominee.  Rees said, “In terms of who I will support should I will not receive the nomination, I will support the nominee.”

At the March forum, Rees also said, “I believe that Leonard Boswell has become quite ineffectual and that he doesn’t represent the Third District anymore.”

Obviously Rees has changed his tune on Boswell.

In endorsing Boswell yesterday, Rees said, “Boswell’s lifelong record of service to this state and our country is rarely seen in politics today.  His character, judgment, and integrity are without question. I trust Congressmen Boswell. I trust him to listen to his constituents and place our interests above his Party. I trust him to make sound, solid decisions void of any self-interest. And above all else, I trust him to always represent this state with honor and integrity.”

The Zaun campaign was also quick to call out Rees’ hypocrisy.  Zaun’s campaign spokesperson, Robert Haus said, “When he announced his bid for Congress, Mark Rees said, ‘I am proud to say these [nominating] signatures were collected one door and one handshake at a time.  The people I met were eager to share their opinions and ideas, but most of all their frustration with career politicians and business as usual in Washington.’ –theiowarepublican.com, March 18, 2010.”

“Mark has now thrown his support behind a 14-year, career politician who embodies ‘business as usual’ in Washington, DC.  Apparently the frustrations Mark heard at the door have been forgotten for political expediency,” Haus concluded.

Rees’ flip-flop will probably bring previous party registration back the forefront in future primary campaigns.  Rees had been a registered Democrat before launching his bid for Congress.

Given the timing, Rees’ endorsement is little more than a simple press release supporting Boswell, who is trying to do everything he can to shift the focus away from his liberal voting record.  In recent polls, Boswell has been shown to be trailing Brad Zaun by as much as 10 points.  Only 31 percent of those surveyed believe that Boswell deserves to be re-elected, while 62 percent want to give someone else a shot.

“Salute to Freedom” Event, Friday, September 17

DES MOINES – Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn today announced Governor Sarah Palin will be the Party’s special guest at the upcoming Reagan Dinner: A Salute to Freedom.

“The Iowa GOP is pleased that Gov. Palin is traveling to Iowa to join the battle to return principled, conservative leadership to Iowa,” said Chairman Strawn. “Our economic and personal freedoms are under attack in Washington, DC and Des Moines. I know Iowa Republicans will be energized and motivated by Gov. Palin to stand up and fight for these principles all the way to Election Day and beyond.”

The Reagan Dinner: A Salute to Freedom will take place the evening of Friday, September 17 in Des Moines. The exact time and location will be announced closer to the event. Tickets for the Reagan Dinner are $100 each, or $1,000 for a table of eight.

Strawn noted that while the former Governor of Alaska and Vice Presidential nominee is popular among Iowans, the current economy is challenging for many Iowa families who may wish to attend. That is why the Iowa GOP is offering Iowans an opportunity to volunteer through any of its ten statewide Victory Centers in exchange for a ticket to the Ronald Reagan “Salute to Freedom” Dinner.  For additional details regarding volunteer opportunities, Iowans should contact their local Iowa GOP Victory Center in: Ames, Cedar Falls, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Iowa City, Marion, Mason City, Ottumwa, Sioux City and Urbandale.

Tickets can be reserved by emailing RSVP@IowaGOP.org or by calling 515-282-8105.

By Matt Schultz, Candidate for Iowa Secretary of State

Councilman Matt Schultz attended the Glenn Beck Honor Rally in Washington D.C. on August 28^th at the Lincoln Memorial.

“I have been to several Tea Party events over the last year and I thought that Glenn Beck’s Honor Rally would be similar to these events and I wanted to see it firsthand.  It was not at all what I expected it to be, but I was not disappointed.  I came away from the Honor Rally with a greater respect for the sacrifice that so many people have made and continue to make so that we can be free,” said Schultz.

“I was standing the entire time next to the reflection pool on the side of the Vietnam War Memorial.  It was an amazing sight.  I had never seen so many people in my entire life.  Everyone seemed excited and there was a lot of clapping and cheering during the event.  The crowd surrounded the Lincoln Memorial and spanned all the way to the Washington Monument and beyond,” said Schultz.

“I think that Glenn Beck was trying to share a message that transcends political parties and churches.  It was a message of principles and of God.  The main point I took away was that if we as individuals and as a Nation make a renewed effort to focus on the principles of Faith, Hope, and Charity, that no matter what our political and religious disagreements, God will bless us individually and as a Nation,” said Schultz.

Matt Schultz was first elected to the Council Bluffs City Council in 2005 and is in his second term.  Matt Schultz won the Republican nomination for Secretary of State in a three way primary in June.  He is a graduate of Creighton Law School and the University of Iowa.  Matt is married with three children and is an Attorney at the law firm of Schultz & Watson, LLP.

“Dave Jamison’s experience as Story County Treasurer is what the people of Iowa need,” said Forbes, who is also the Honorary Chairman of Iowans for Discounted Taxes, “Dave has put together a plan that will put Iowa first. He has continually worked to create transparency in the treasurer’s office and to fight government waste.”

Forbes went on to say “In a time where many are growing government at an unprecedented pace Dave was able to make his office work for the people without growing it out of control. His streamlined processes helped save the people of Story County money and as State Treasurer he will work to save all Iowans money. The people of Iowa need a treasurer who will work in their best interest and that man is Dave Jamison.”

Jamison and Forbes had a chance to sit and talk while Forbes was in Polk County for a lunch meeting. “Steve Forbes is recognized internationally as an authority on sound fiscal policies and has worked to promote a strong economy throughout the country. I am honored to earn his support. As I travel this state with a positive message of getting Iowa back on sound fiscal footing, our campaign continues to gain momentum and support. I am grateful to have the support of such a respected leader in the financial community and will continue working hard to ensure Iowans have a treasurer who will put Iowa first again.”

The visit would be Palin’s first visit to Iowa since making a brief stop in the state in December of 2009 for a book signing.  The visit to the First-In-The-Nation Caucus state is certain to create buzz about a potential run for president in 2012.

Palin’s visit comes on the heels of her appearance at Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor rally in Washington D.C.    It also comes a week after TheIowaRepublican.com released polling results that showed Palin trailing Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich in a 2012 caucus poll.

Bringing Palin to the state is a big deal for the Republican Party of Iowa.  Most people have strong opinions of Palin following the 2008 presidential campaign, and she is sure to be a tremendous draw for the state party.

Photo by Dave Davidson

Throughout the 2008 campaign, the news media was obsessed with the crowds that came to Obama’s campaign rallies.  We all remember the awesome photographs of his crowds in St. Louis, Missouri, Portland, Oregon, and Berlin, Germany.  Even if one wasn’t paying attention to the campaign, it was nearly impossible to escape the media’s coverage of Obama’s rallies.

Of course, our friends in the news media also went out of their way to educate the American public on what these large crowds meant.  For the most part, the news media was correct in covering Obama’s huge crowds.  He did soundly defeat Sen. John McCain in November, but let’s not forget, he only received 53 percent of the vote.

While justified to an extent, the news media also made a significant impact on the 2008 presidential campaign that wasn’t necessary.  They helped propel a mere candidate running for president into some sort of cultural icon that rivaled some of the most recognizable brands in the world.  Obama’s “O” logo is as well know as the Nike swoosh, or the Pepsi or Coke logos.

For reasons unknown, the news media seems to be unwilling to cover the huge crowds generated by the Tea Party activists in the same way they covered the Obama crowds of 2008.  The turnout at Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally on the National Mall in Washington D.C. was simply amazing.  While it’s impossible to know exactly how many people attended, we do know that it was similar to the size of crowds Obama was able to generate just two years ago.

NBC News estimated the size of the crowd to be 300,000 people, which is pretty impressive.  Just like Obama’s huge crowds foreshadowing his victory in 2008, the Tea Party rallies are foreshadowing big things in 2010.

Unlike their coverage of Obama, most of the traditional news media outlets spend their time trying to either attack or understand what the Tea Party movement really is.  It seems like every few months, someone in the national media ponders the question about whether or not the Tea Party movement is a positive thing for the Republican Party.

In many cases, these stories usually follow negative stories that claim racial epithets were being shouted at members of the Congressional Black Caucus, for which there is no proof whatsoever.  More negative publicity occurred when the NACCP adopted a resolution condemning the “racist elements” of the Tea Party.  Very rarely does the news media write articles that comptemplate how the Tea Party movement may help the GOP in this fall’s elections.

It’s ironic that, after hundreds of thousands of people turned out to attend the Restoring Honor rally on Saturday, some members of the national media are still finding ways to make it a negative story for the GOP.  There are even some sportswriters are worried about what Albert Pujols’ attendance at the rally will do to his popularity.   Unbelievable.

So what drives the negative obsession with some in the news media?  Fear.

As we all know by now, most members of the traditional media in this county endorse the Obama administration’s leftward lurch.  They celebrate the government’s takeover of the healthcare industry, the student loan industry, and numerous businesses that looked to the federal government to survive.  They see no problem with the ever-increasing size and scope of our government.

The news media also doesn’t understand that the Tea Party’s strength and numbers are not spurred by the presence of one political figure.  There is no doubt that Glenn Beck has done a lot to get the Tea Party off the ground.  His media presence lets him promote events like the rally this past Saturday.  While Beck is a popular media personality, he’s not out there promising the things that every presidential candidate does.

Instead, Beck and millions of Tea Party members across the county only want to take their country back to the basics on which it was founded.  While the media will cover these large events, they underestimate the importance of the Tea Party groups that are meeting in our own communities, some meet as often as once a week.  It is this type of activity that separates the Tea Party from previous political movement.  It’s real because it’s local.

The answer to the question about whether or not the Tea Party will help the GOP this fall is simple.  Without any doubt, the Tea Party will absolutely help the GOP.  While the movement isn’t a Republican movement, it sure isn’t going to be helpful to the Democratic Party, which holds the strings of power of all three branches of government, nationally and in Iowa.

The most encouraging part of the Tea Party movement is not that they will help Republicans win elections this fall, it’s that they have shown no signs of being satisfied with the results of any election.  It is likely that the Tea Party movement will continue to influence the GOP and politics in general.  If that is the case, this country will be better off for it.

Beck’s Restoring Honor rally is the latest sign that the Tea Party movement is alive and well in America.  Obviously many in the media don’t quite understand it, but they will probably figure it out on November 3rd.

Some commentators in Iowa have argued that adding a marriage amendment to the Iowa constitution is unnecessary.  Rather, they maintain that the legislature has the authority to remove from the courts any jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a statute.  As a result, proponents believe that there is no need to amend the Iowa Constitution when the legislature can simply thank the Supreme Court for their opinion, but continue to enforce the current law without recourse to judicial review.

Though the idea of court-stripping has only recently begun to gain traction in Iowa, it is an old idea that was first used in 1801 when the newly-elected Jeffersonian Congress, rightly afraid that the Supreme Court would hold their abolishment of federal judgeships unconstitutional, removed the Court’s jurisdiction to review their actions.  At the time, the courts never ruled on the constitutionality of court-stripping because it was never litigated.

As support for their argument, proponents of court-stripping cite Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that 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.”  Iowa’s Constitution contains somewhat similar language in Sections 4 and 6 of Article 5.

At the federal level, court-stripping has become a favorite “magic wand” by conservatives in their effort to check activist judges who do not adhere to the Constitution as it was originally understood.  Each year, court-stripping bills are unsuccessfully introduced in Congress to remove the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Pledge of Allegiance, abortion regulations, etc.

But as much as we may desire such an easy solution, the Exemptions Clause (the court-stripping provision) was never intended by the Founders as a tool by which Congress could combat judicial tyranny.  There is not a single Founder at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified who proposed any other check to reign in the judiciary than impeachment and the amendment process.  Never once did they suggest any recourse to the Exemptions Clause, an executive order vetoing court decisions, or nullification.

Rather, the Exemption Clause only gave Congress the authority to regulate the appellate jurisdiction of one court—the Supreme Court.  By its own terms, the Clause only refers to the “supreme Court” and therefore does not give Congress the authority to regulate the jurisdiction of lower federal courts or state courts.  Nor do state legislatures have the authority to strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to their state laws.

Additionally, early drafts of the Clause at the Constitutional Convention illustrate that it was only intended to provide Congress with the power to distribute appellate review between the Supreme Court and such lower federal courts that Congress may establish.  These preliminary versions stated that the Supreme Court shall have such appellate review “with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Legislature shall make. The Legislature may assign any part of the jurisdiction above mentioned (except the trial of the President of the United States) in the manner, and under the limitations which it shall think proper, to such Inferior Courts, as it shall constitute from time to time.”  (emphasis original)

Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 81, explained that the degree of the Supreme Court’s review of lower court decisions will necessarily vary as to the type of case (criminal, civil, admiralty, etc.).  Because of this, it was impossible to draft a single standard into the Constitution and, therefore, the Constitutional Convention opted to leave it to “the national legislature [to] prescribe [such regulations so as to] enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.”

Apart from a historical analysis, the Exemptions Clause cannot be read to allow Congress to exempt itself from judicial review, for doing so would make it a law unto itself.  While conservatives desire such a power for use against activist judges, liberals would be all too eager to use it to insulate their legislative agendas from constitutional scrutiny.

Though conservatives relish the idea of stripping the courts of their authority to strike down abortion regulations, the defense of marriage act (DOMA), and the Pledge of Allegiance, they are naturally outraged when the Democrats contemplate doing the same with ObamaCare, cap and trade, bailout programs, oil drilling moratoriums, the Fairness Doctrine, Card Check, etc.

Treating the Exemption Clause in this manner would give Congress a “get out of jail free” card whereby it could commit constitutional violations without fear of being caught.  Furthermore, there would be no need for an amendment process to the Constitution, nor even a written Constitution itself, because change could occur by simple legislative fiat insulated from judicial review.

For instance, though the current judicial nomination process is established by the state constitution, if court stripping were permissible the General Assembly could simply change the process by statute and remove from the courts any power to review their actions.  Certainly the Exemptions Clause was never understood to provide the legislature with this type of an end run around the Constitution.

But in Iowa there is also a very real practical problem with this magic wand, for even if the General Assembly stripped the courts of their authority to review the constitutionality of DOMA, it will still be up to each individual county recorder, the officer charged with issuing marriage licenses, as to whether they will follow the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v. Brien or the state’s stricken, but now non-reviewable, DOMA.

Because the legislature and governor have no authority to force them to obey DOMA, it will be up to the Iowa Attorney General to determine whether or not, in his or her opinion, the county recorders are following the law and, if they are not, to institute removal procedures against them.  Those procedures, however, bring the issue back before the courts, the very judges the legislature was trying to avoid in the first place.

A constitutionally dubious proposition such as court-stripping is not the solution to restoring traditional marriage in Iowa, only a constitutional amendment is.