Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

The fact that I can't find anything about this from anything other than fringe-ish sources makes me suspicious.....

0 Replies

I found the Senate version (S 2082) on Thomas. I did not find the House version.

You should try reading the bill for yourself, rather than swallowing the news reporting whole. The report you cite makes it sound as if the bill requires acknowledgement of God as "the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of executing his office". What it actually attempts to do is protect any official who expresses that opinion from being hauled before the court for it.

Seems to me that all they are trying to do is guarantee judges and other officials the same freedom of religion that the rest of us enjoy. As such, I can't personally support the notion behind this bill, because I've never thought it made sense to pass a new law to address the fact that an existing one (or Constitutional protection) was being violated.

Of course, with so many anti-Christian voices today, and so many people genuinely hoodwinked about the true intention of the non-establishment clause, it doesn't surprise me that some lawmakers would consider something like this necessary.

But you feel free to consider this worrisome if you like. Seems you have a real hard-on for anything that has to do with God.

0 Replies

I agree with Scrat! Shocked

I'll be back after I finish vomiting!

0 Replies

BS
Anti Christians? That's pure BS. Most people are not anti-Christian, they are anti Right Wing Christian Zealots who are trying to ram their version of Christianity down the American people's throats and attempting to subvert to Constitution and buy & bully the Govt. into forcing Americans to be under the yoke of their brand of Fascist perveted Christianity.

0 Replies

Actually, if you read the bill itself, it doesn't do that.
SB2082
House Bill HR3799
And, to be fair, I would be very surprised if this passes. Its mostly hot air.

0 Replies

Re: BS

pistoff wrote:

Anti Christians? That's pure BS. Most people are not anti-Christian, they are anti Right Wing Christian Zealots who are trying to ram their version of Christianity down the American people's throats and attempting to subvert to Constitution and buy & bully the Govt. into forcing Americans to be under the yoke of their brand of Fascist perveted Christianity.

When you set yourself up as the judge of what is "okay" Christianity and what is not, you are already anti-Christian. That you don't think so doesn't change that. I know racists who don't think they are racists, too. Sure, they use the "n" word and tell those jokes, but racist? Nooooooooo.... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Quote:

Because the judiciary is "an element" of the federal, state and local governments, this wording, if it becomes law, may allow any judge to institute biblical punishments without being subject to review by the Supreme Court or the federal court system.

I think this is wrong. The proposed bill apparently divests only the Supreme Court of any jurisdiction to review appeals, so the intermediate federal appeals courts are not affected. And the bill cannot completely eliminate the judiciary's ability to rule on a deprivation of a constitutional right, as the court implied in Ex parte Yerger (1869).

Quote:

Because the term "foreign" is a term of art in the law and can refer to another jurisdiction within the United States, like another state or another county, the proposed law is troubling.

This is clearly an incorrect interpretation of the act. "Foreign," in this context, unmistakably alludes to decisions from courts beyond the national boundaries of the United States.

But, in the end, hobitbob is right: this is just another example of the conservative fringe blowing a lot of hot air on an issue dear to the hearts of the televangelists and the immoral minority; there's no chance that the bill will be passed.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

But, in the end, hobitbob is right: this is just another example of the conservative fringe blowing a lot of hot air...

1) I love that you point out two concrete examples of how HB is factually wrong in his analysis, then write that he is right "in the end". It's as if you think that he gets an A as long as he is against the right things, even if it is for the wrong (baseless) reasons.

2) Are you calling Zell Miller, a Democrat, the "conservative fringe"?

0 Replies

BBB
Zell Miller is a Democrat in title only. He really is a consistent conservative Republican.

BBB

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

1) I love that you point out two concrete examples of how HB is factually wrong in his analysis, then write that he is right "in the end". It's as if you think that he gets an A as long as he is against the right things, even if it is for the wrong (baseless) reasons.

The two concrete examples that I quoted were from the article to which pistoff initially linked. Hobitbob had nothing to do with those quotations. Perhaps if you had actually read the linked article or any of Hobitbob's previous posts in this thread, you would not have made such a careless error.

Scrat wrote:

2) Are you calling Zell Miller, a Democrat, the "conservative fringe"?

Well, I wasn't singling out Zell Miller specifically, but I don't think I'd call him a part of the "conservative fringe." I'd prefer to think of him as a part of the "right-wing Democratic sell-out lunatic fringe."

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Scrat wrote:
1) I love that you point out two concrete examples of how HB is factually wrong in his analysis, then write that he is right "in the end". It's as if you think that he gets an A as long as he is against the right things, even if it is for the wrong (baseless) reasons.

The two concrete examples that I quoted were from the article to which pistoff initially linked. Hobitbob had nothing to do with those quotations. Perhaps if you had actually read the linked article or any of Hobitbob's previous posts in this thread, you would not have made such a careless error.

Ahhhh. My bad. I owe both you and HB apologies...

1) Sorry, Joe.

2) Sorry, HB.

It was an honest mistake, but it was my mistake, so I'll own it. I guess I need to boot up my logic chip first, and my sarcasm chip second. I think I have them switched around at present. :wink:

0 Replies

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know