1
   

The constitution Restoration Act

 
 
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 09:49 am
I can't tell you how sick this makes me.

Top neocons in congress are pushing this, BTW.

Quote:
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

HR 3799 IH



108th CONGRESS

2d Session



H. R. 3799
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 11, 2004




Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself and Mr. PENCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2004'.

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

(2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1260. Matters not reviewable.'.

(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:

`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review

`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district court shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'.

(2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'.

(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.

TITLE II--INTERPRETATION

SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than the constitutional law and English common law.

TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.

Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.

SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.

To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--

(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.
END




http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.html

Wow. So, they are seeking to define our constitutional freedoms as stemming from God. Welcome to the theocracy, people.

From The Moscow Times:

http://context.themoscowtimes.com/index.php?aid=131199

Quote:
Pin Heads

If enacted, the Constitution Restoration Act will effectively transform the United States into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher power" can override law.

By Chris Floyd
Published: March 12, 2004

One of the sticking points in crafting the just-signed "interim constitution" of the Pentagon cash cow formerly known as Iraq was the question of acknowledging Islam as the fundamental source of law. After much wrangling, a fudge was worked out that cites the Koran as a fundamental source of legal authority, with the proviso that no law can be passed that conflicts with Islam.

We in the enlightened West smile at such theocratic quibbling, of course: Imagine, national leaders insisting that a modern state be governed solely by divine authority! Governments guaranteeing the right of religious extremists to impose their views on society! What next -- debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Oh, those poor, ignorant barbarians in Babylon!

Well, wipe that smile off your face. For even now, the ignorant barbarians in Washington are pushing a law through Congress that would "acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty [and] government" in the United States. What's more, it would forbid all legal challenges to government officials who use the power of the state to enforce their own view of "God's sovereign authority." Any judge who dared even hear such a challenge could be removed from office.


The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" is no joke; it was introduced last month by some of the Bush Regime's most powerful Congressional sycophants. If enacted, it will effectively transform the American republic into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher power" -- as interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat or president -- can override the rule of law.


The Act -- drafted by a minion of television evangelist Pat Robertson -- is the fruit of decades of work by a group of extremists known broadly as "Dominionists." Their openly expressed aim is to establish "biblical rule" over every aspect of society -- placing "the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere under Christ the King." Or as Attorney General John Ashcroft -- the nation's chief law enforcement officer -- has often proclaimed: "America has no king but Jesus!"

According to Dominionist literature, "biblical rule" means execution -- preferably by stoning -- of homosexuals and other "revelers in licentiousness"; massive tax cuts for the rich (because "wealth is a mark of God's favor"); the elimination of government programs to alleviate poverty and sickness (because these depend on "confiscation of wealth"); and enslavement for debtors. No legal challenges to "God's order" will be allowed. And because this order is divinely ordained, the "elect" can use any means necessary to establish it, including deception, subversion, even violence. As Robertson himself adjures the faithful: "Zealous men force their way in."

Again, this is no tiny band of cranks meeting in some basement in Alabama, as recent reports by investigators Karen Yurica and David Neiwert make clear. The Dominionists are bankrolled and directed by deep-pocketed, well-connected business moguls and political operatives who have engineered a takeover of the Republican Party and are now at the heart of the U.S. government. They've made common cause with the "American Empire" faction -- Cheney, Rumsfeld, the neo-conservatives -- who seek "full-spectrum dominance" over the globe. The Dominionists provide money and domestic political muscle for the Dominators' imperial ambitions; in return, the Dominators provide a practical vehicle -- overwhelming military might and state power -- for making the Dominionists' dreams a reality.

The Dominionist movement was founded by the late R.J. Rushdoony, a busy beaver who also co-founded the Council for National Policy. The CNP is the politburo of the American conservative movement, filled with top-rank political and business leaders who set the national agenda for the vast echo chamber of right-wing foundations, publishers, media networks and universities that have schooled a whole generation in obscurantist bile -- just as the extremist Wahabbi religious schools funded by Saudi billionaires have poisoned the Islamic world with hatred and ignorance.

One of the chief moneybags behind the rise of Dominionism was tycoon Harold Ahmanson, Rushdoony's protege and fellow CNP member. In addition to establishing theocracy in America, Ahmanson has another abiding interest: computerized voting machines. As reported here last year, Ahmanson, a fervent Bush backer, was instrumental in establishing two of the Republican-controlled companies now rushing to install their highly hackable machines -- with untraceable, unrecountable electronic ballots -- across the country in time for the November election.

The Dominionists also have strong backing on the Supreme Court, Yurica notes. Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the unconstitutional ruling that gave Bush the presidency, declared in the theological journal First Things that the state derives its moral authority from God, not the "consent of the governed," as that old licentious reveler Thomas Jefferson held in the Declaration of Independence. No, government "is the 'minister of God' with powers to 'revenge,' to 'execute wrath,' including even wrath by the sword," Scalia wrote. He railed against the "tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government."

Meanwhile, the tools of dominion keep expanding. Just days after the Congressional Bushists launched their theocratic missile, General Ralph Eberhart, head of America's first domestic military command, said the Regime must now bring the experience learned on foreign battlefields to the "Homeland" itself, including the integration of police, military and intelligence forces, "wide-area surveillance of the United States" and "urban warfare tactics," GovExec.com reports.

Put this juggernaut at the service of democracy-hating extremists with no legal restraints on their enforcement of "God's sovereign authority" -- plus a proven track record of subverting the law to gain political power -- and what would you have? A mullah state? A military theocracy?

Or should we just call it "a second term"?



This is really scary stuff.

Cycloptichorn
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,342 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:18 am
I don't care for the first part you highlighted Cyclop, I think it violates some very fundamental parts of our Constitution and shouldn't be allowed to even reach the floor.

The second part that you highlighted is the part I don't understand what the problem there is. (Although I'm not a lawyer and am not sure of the ramifications of that part. I wish joefromchicago were here to interpret for us.)

The psycho rant that followed it however was a bit 'over the top' though, don't you think?

I think that stating your case in a piece is much more effective when you don't sound like a shrill prophet of doom.

Just my 2 cents ... pre tax.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:24 am
You will note that the 'psycho rant' is simply a link to the Moscow Times. I didn't write it; just linking to where I originally read about the bill.

The second part of the original link that was highlighted is important. It is a bone thrown to strict constructionists; under this, judges would only be allowed to interpret the constitution by using... the constitution. This seeks to limit the power of Federal judges to actually make decisions for themselves over how to interpret the constitution; at least, that's how I read it.

DebraLaw, JoeFromChicago? Anyone who knows more about this subject, I'd love to hear.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:40 am
Fedral wrote:
The second part that you highlighted is the part I don't understand what the problem there is. (Although I'm not a lawyer and am not sure of the ramifications of that part. I wish joefromchicago were here to interpret for us.)

Your wish is my command!

As far as I can tell, the section that you reference would prohibit courts from relying upon any foreign law or sources when making decisions. As the text states:
    In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than the constitutional law and English common law.
You're correct, Fedral: this shouldn't be a problem. American courts are required to follow the Constitution, statutes, treaties, and binding judicial precedent. They are not typically required to follow any foreign law or precedent, since those laws have no force or validity here. Judges can, on the other hand, draw from any and all sources for guidance. For example, a judge may look at a foreign law to see how another jurisdiction handles a certain problem (just as an Illinois judge might look at a Wisconsin statute for guidance), but that foreign law does not compel the judge to rule in a particular way. At most, foreign laws and precedents are persuasive, not binding.

There is a segment of the political and legal community, however, that has become unduly alarmed at some supreme court decisions which, in its opinion, rely far too much on foreign legal precedents (for more, check this link). Now, as I've mentioned, no foreign law or precedent is binding on any US court (except the decisions of foreign tribunals to which the US adheres as the result of treaties), and I've never seen a supreme court decision that has stated anything to the contrary. Nevertheless, there are some people who are particularly incensed about the supreme court even mentioning foreign laws or precedents, and I suppose this proposed bill is their way of dealing with that "problem."
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:41 am
As I recall Cyc, the ONLY job of the Supreme Court was to interpret the Constitution using ONLY the Constitution.

As I recall, the Founding Fathers decided to restrict the Judicial Branch of our government to be merely interpreters of the Constitution to restrict those un elected individuals from making 'new law' (Something reserved for Congress and the States.)

I do hope joefromchicago can give us his input, as I have always respected his opinions on the forums here and something in his own bailiwick should be a piece of cake for him. (As long as he doesn't charge us for the consultation Laughing )
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:43 am
Now, about the first part?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 10:52 am
Thanks a ton Joe, I knew you would be able to interpret for those of us who are 'legaleese challenged'. You are the best. Smile



Cyc, I think we can all agree that the first part is 'over the line' and as I said, I believe that it shouldn't make it onto the floor for a vote.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 11:06 am
Fedral wrote:
Thanks a ton Joe, I knew you would be able to interpret for those of us who are 'legaleese challenged'. You are the best. Smile

You will be receiving my bill in the mail shortly.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 11:09 am
I'm not as worried that it will make it to a vote (though it is troubling) as I am that there are those who want this to come to the vote. And they are some of the highest placed officials...

Seperation of Church and state is extremely important to me...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 11:30 am
Any Congressman or Senator can introduce legislation.

If there is insufficient support, it never sees the light of day on the floor.

If it does, it gets a vote.

If enacted, it may be vetoed.

Of course, the veto can be overridden.

If signed legislation is unconstitutional, it will be challenged and the arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional will decide.

It is the way of our Republic.

Why would anyone object to that process?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 12:16 pm
Noone is objecting to the process, sheesh...

It's the idea that many powerful members of our gov't, and of the party YOU support, Larry, would like to see this happen. It's not an exaggeration.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 12:22 pm
Cyc, this is the kind of Bill that never gets to the floor of the House.

It's just like that Democrat whacko who seems to be the ONLY member of the House who would like to see a military draft.

He may talk about it ... he may even submit it to committee ... it may even make it to the floor (But only so all the members can show how they will vote no on it) but it will never ... ever ... pass.

There have been some truly wacky bits of legislation submitted to Congress over the year, but most of them are laughed right out of committee.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 12:22 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Noone is objecting to the process, sheesh...

It's the idea that many powerful members of our gov't, and of the party YOU support, Larry, would like to see this happen. It's not an exaggeration.

Cycloptichorn


As I said, they have every right to advance legislation and subject it to the process of Consitutional checks and balances. Happens all the time.

And I am not a member of or an active supporter of any party, being a registered independent. But, on balance, the GOP is closer to my political ideology than the Dems. So I almost always vote against the Dems, although I voted for our Dem Governor in the last election.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 12:22 pm
I think it has been pointed out that neither "side" has a monolpoly of fringe riding lunatics.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 12:37 pm
I agree.

The problem is, every day, this kind of stuff becomes less and less 'fringe' with the Republican party.

It used to be that any politician who would even consider putting his name on such a thing would have been drawn and quartered publicly.

The question on whether or not this bill will see the light of day depends on whether or not Bush wins. If he doesn't, no way. If he does, maybe.

It doesn't worry you people that this has even come up?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 12:43 pm
"It doesn't worry you people that this has even come up?"

Of course not. The Founding Father's have already worried about it and provided for extensive checks and balances to deal with legislation proposed.

If the legislation passes thru all those hoops, and survives a court challenge of the Constitutionality of it, it is probably good legislation as viewed by the majority.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Oct, 2004 03:31 pm
Don't forget that there are always changes made to a bill as it goes up the line. I agree with the second part of the bill and I hope that it does indeed pass into law. We don't need our court system making judgments on something that happened in the EU or Canada.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The constitution Restoration Act
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 02:38:30