Not according to Article 3.
Sure they do, as Article 3 courts, they were passed under that authority, that is, created, so they can technically be abolished, although we are talking silliness.
Years ago they passed a law stating no Federal court could hear a Habeas Corpus petition from Guantanamo detainee/enemy combatant. From what I remember, this was legal, as years ago the US SC ruled that a “substitute” remedy to HC was constitutional, as long as it afforded protection. I don’t know how that came out.
I don’t agree with that. The SC, per Article 3, can expressly hear ANY Federal question “case or controversy”.
What the SC can’t do is accept an appeal based SOLEY on state law/constitution’s.
Where there is a mixed bag, or the gravaman is so dependent on federal law, even though the state decision does not issue a ruling that way, meaning, conclusionary on state law, the SC can/may hear it.
First of all, I’d like to make a distinction between US (Austrian, Chicagoan, Freshwater, Anarchocapitalist, Minarchist, Paleo, whatever) Libertarianism and everywhere else. Just so they don’t entirely co-opt the term.
Then I’d like to point out that opposition to the notion of anthropogenic global warming, or at least any negative effects it may have is pretty mainstream. I’m not saying that they don’t have valid scientific reasons for opposition to the notion of anthropogenic global warming, but the conception of the tragedy of the commons poses a serious threat to the notion that market forces, shareholders or the invisible hand will guide the nation into prosperity and happiness. Some have slightly less controversial views.
As far as I’m aware, Ron Paul not only rejects anthropogenic global warming, he also rejects evolution by natural selection and endorses abstinence-only education. That’s not really surprising, given that if the Department of Education were dismantled, parochial education would resume for some, homeschooling for others and child labour would probably follow as well.
I too have a facebook friend (who is Asian and relatively young) that is a Ron Paul supporter (despite living in the UK) and sometimes we discuss these issues. He advocates a repeal of civil rights legislation, claiming that the invisible hand will mean that businesses that refuse to serve ethnic minorities will not receive as many patrons. I think that’s about as reasonable as assuming that Spike Lee wouldn’t make commercials for a corporation that utilises child labour.
Edit: Oh, Gary Johnson is a fairly reasonable Libertarian on issues of gay and civil rights. Thought I’d throw that out there.
Yes, according to Article 3. It just can’t take away the jurisdiction specifically granted in Art. 3.
Oh, I’d also like to put out that “State’s Rights” is something people should be cognizant of.