A "Fuming" John Kerry

DIRECT Evidence:

Delay's OWN WORDS:

Quote:

DeLay: Look, I'm for an independent judiciary. I don't know where they get this. When you attack the left's legislative body, they get really upset. But I'm for an independent judiciary. I'm for an independent Congress. I'm for an independent executive. But the Constitution of the United States gives us responsibility for oversight and checks and balances over the executive as well as the judiciary. And we all know that this judiciary is extremely active. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at it and give recommendations as to what we ought to do. Read the book Men in Black.

Mr. Dinan: You've been talking about going after activist judges since at least 1997. The [Terri] Schiavo case gives you a chance to do that, but you've recently said you blame Congress for not being zealous in oversight.

Mr. DeLay: Not zealous. I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.

Mr. Dinan: How can Congress stop them?

Mr. DeLay: There's all kinds of ways available to them.

Mr. Dinan: You tried two last year on the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Senate didn't go along with those.

Mr. DeLay: We're having to change a whole culture in this - a culture created by law schools. People really believe that these are nine gods, and that all wisdom is vested in them. This means it's a slow, long-term process. I mean, we passed six bills out of the House limiting jurisdiction. We passed an amendment last September breaking up the Ninth Circuit. These are all things that have passed the House of Representatives.

Mr. Dinan: Are you going to pursue impeaching judges?

Mr. DeLay: I'm not going to answer that. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at this. They're going to start holding hearings on different issues. They are more capable than me to look at this issue and take responsibility, given the, whatever, the Constitution.

It is CLEAR to all of us that DeLay is against the following:

1) Separation of church and state;

2) Judicial review; and

3) The right to privacy.

It is CLEAR to all of us that DeLay *thinks* that Congress has the POWER to limit the jurisdiction of the judiciary even though the CONSTITUTION provides that the judiciary shall have jurisdiction over ALL cases arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States.

Accordingly, if Congress passes a law and proclaims therein that the Judicial Branch shall NOT have jurisdiction with respect to that particular law . . . the mere congressional enactment and the supreme law of the land conflict. When the two laws conflict -- the Supreme Law prevails.

Congress does not have ALL KINDS OF WAYS AVAILABLE to undermine the independence of the judiciary. Congress does not have the power to eliminate separation of church and state, judicial review, and the right to privacy. DeLay's skewed and self-serving interpretation of WHATEVER (the CONSTITUTION) does not trump the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

We have DIRECT evidence, through DeLay's own words, concerning his agenda. He wants Congress to exercise power it doesn't have to oversee the judicial branch and eliminate separation of church and state, judicial review, and the right of privacy. These are the three things, in his mind, that stand in the way of his agenda: Majority TYRANNY of the minority through the power of the state without constitutional restraint.

You don't need to be a mindreader to figure out another person's motives or intent. For hundreds of years, juries have been required to draw reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances presented to find a defendant's intent or motive beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that juries are not mindreaders does not prevent them from convicting defendants.

0 Replies

On display in Houston this afternoon:

http://www.blogforamerica.com/billboard_trans_300.gif

0 Replies

Debra,
Article 3 of the constitution is quite specific.
It clearly gives congress the power to determine what is or is not federal court jurisdiction.

Art 3 Sec 1 clearly states..."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. 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. "

This is quite clear.It gives congress the power to create AND abolish federal courts.

Art3 Sec 2 says..."both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

This is quite clear also.Congress has the power to decide exactly what is or is not federal court jurisdiction.

The judges are independent,in the sense that they are appointed for life and not elected,but the Federal court system DOES answer to Congress.

0 Replies

Foxfyre:

DeLay made some clear statements where he said that Congress allowed the courts to establish a wall of separation of Church and State. This is DeLay's opinion-Thomas Jefferson made it clear that the wall existed since Day One of the Constitution-and Jefferson was there. DeLay was not.

DeLay also said that he felt judicial review was forced onto the scene when Congress should have stopped it.

And Debra gave us the quote where DeLay made it clear that he is examining options to rid the nation of these two things.

DeLay could not be more clear in making it plain he does not like the wall of separation and judicial review, and he is examining concrete steps to eliminate them.

Yet you insist that he has made statements to the contrary, and that we are playing mind reader. Produce those statements, and I will happily consider them. Honest. But so far, all I hear is that "nowhere in the Constitution" makes some sor of big difference, when nobody claimed that the wall of separation was ever written in the Constitution in the first place. It was only argued that it was IMPLIED by the Constitution, a view shared by Thomas Jefferson.

Until you can produce some statements to the contrary, I'm afraid that any reasonable person has no choice but to take Mr DeLay's very clear, very pointed, very detailed statements against the wall of separation and judicial review at face value.

0 Replies

Mysteryman:

Well, at least you are on a clearer track than Foxfyre, in that you state the case that Congress can decide what the courts can decide and what they cannot.

I don't know if you support DeLay or not, but clearly that is the direction DeLay wants to go, especially in regards to wall of separation and judicail review.

The Constitution makes the provisions you claim, yet for over 200 years, Congress hasn't used those powers, if indeed it has them.

I presumethe members of congress for the past two centuries ahs mostly been staffed by literate people who can read those provisions as well as you or Tom DeLay. Yet, it hasn't set to the task of limiting the decisions the courts can make, certainly not the Supreme Court. I am nsure there are many decisions the Sujpreme Court has made over the years that has enraged the majority of Congress, yet they never take the step of limiting the areas courts can decide.

Can you tell me why?

I can think of only two reasons for this-there ight be others, but only two come to mind right away.

A) The Constitution might give the powers you claim, but for Congress to use them might well be unworkable. There might well be countering parts of the Constitution which make the idea of Congress simply telling the Courts, let alone the Supreme Court, what it might or might not decide very difficult to do. I am sure you are mature enough to realize that what might seem possible on paper might turn out to be all but impossible to accomplish in reality.

B) The Congress might have felt that the Nation was better served NOT circumscribing the Supreme Court's power. While I am sure that the Supreme Court has made decisions that Congress did not like, they might have felt that it is better to have this institution in place to decide these things rather than give them to Congress, where things can change in a couple of years.

Regardless of WHY Congress has not acted to circumscribe the Supreme Court's power, the fact is that it has not done so in over 200 years.

Which means that DeLay is a radical. Who knows, perhaps DeLay is right in thinking what Congress can do in regards to jurisdicition. But the fact that Congress so far has chosen not to do it in 200 years, and he is trying to reverse that, shows what a radical he is.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Mysteryman:

Well, at least you are on a clearer track than Foxfyre, in that you state the case that Congress can decide what the courts can decide and what they cannot.

I don't know if you support DeLay or not, but clearly that is the direction DeLay wants to go, especially in regards to wall of separation and judicail review.

The Constitution makes the provisions you claim, yet for over 200 years, Congress hasn't used those powers, if indeed it has them.

I presumethe members of congress for the past two centuries ahs mostly been staffed by literate people who can read those provisions as well as you or Tom DeLay. Yet, it hasn't set to the task of limiting the decisions the courts can make, certainly not the Supreme Court. I am nsure there are many decisions the Sujpreme Court has made over the years that has enraged the majority of Congress, yet they never take the step of limiting the areas courts can decide.

Can you tell me why?

I can think of only two reasons for this-there ight be others, but only two come to mind right away.

A) The Constitution might give the powers you claim, but for Congress to use them might well be unworkable. There might well be countering parts of the Constitution which make the idea of Congress simply telling the Courts, let alone the Supreme Court, what it might or might not decide very difficult to do. I am sure you are mature enough to realize that what might seem possible on paper might turn out to be all but impossible to accomplish in reality.

B) The Congress might have felt that the Nation was better served NOT circumscribing the Supreme Court's power. While I am sure that the Supreme Court has made decisions that Congress did not like, they might have felt that it is better to have this institution in place to decide these things rather than give them to Congress, where things can change in a couple of years.

Regardless of WHY Congress has not acted to circumscribe the Supreme Court's power, the fact is that it has not done so in over 200 years.

Which means that DeLay is a radical. Who knows, perhaps DeLay is right in thinking what Congress can do in regards to jurisdicition. But the fact that Congress so far has chosen not to do it in 200 years, and he is trying to reverse that, shows what a radical he is.

It is the Constitution but to use it would make you a radical? I thought using the Constitution was the American way of life. I would say to continue the use the fillibuster is being radical because it isn't in the Constitution.

At least some of what Delay is doing is Constitutional!

0 Replies

And I have intentionally chosen not to get into the nitty gritty of what is and what is and is not appropriate for Congress to do. My whole point is that the left sees Delay behaving with a motive and purpose that I don't think they've made a case for. It takes a pretty strong leap of faith to pull some incidental phrases out of an interview and extrapolate from them that his intent is to dismantle the courts and the Constitution.

0 Replies

Mysteryman: READ the constitution:

Quote:

Article III

Section 1. 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. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,

(1) (a) arising under this Constitution,

(1) (b) [arising under] the laws of the United States, and

(1) (c) [arising under] treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;

(2) to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;

(3) to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;

(4) to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;

(5) to controversies between two or more states;

(6) between a state and citizens of another state;

(7) between citizens of different states;

(8) between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and

(9) between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, 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.

How does the Supreme Court view the "exceptions" to its appellate jurisdiction?

See JOHNSON v. ROBISON, 415 U.S. 361 (1974)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/415/361.html

In Johnson v. Robison, the Court addressed a statute that prohibited judicial review of decisions of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs on any question of law or fact under laws administered by the Veterans' Administration providing for veterans' benefits.

Robison argued that the Veterans' Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966 was unconstitutional because it denied educational benefits to conscientious objectors who are required to complete alternative civilian service. He claimed the Act violated the First Amendment (freedom of religion) and the Fifth Amendment (equal protection).

The government argued that Robison's case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the law prohibited judicial review. The Court stated that any law that bars federal courts from deciding the constitutionality of federal law would in itself be unconstitutional. Therefore, the Court interpreted the statute in a manner that would allow constitutional review:

"Plainly, no explicit provision of 211 (a) bars judicial consideration of appellee's constitutional claims." [If the law explicitly barred judicial review of constitutional claims, the law itself would be unconstitutional on its face.] "The questions of law presented in these proceedings arise under the Constitution, not under the statute whose validity is challenged."

Accordingly, CONGRESS may not pass a law that explicitly prohibits judicial review of the constitutionality of that law. Article III, Section 2, Subsection 2, CANNOT be interpreted to give Congress unlimited power to EVADE the limitations placed on Congress by the Constitution.

For instance, the First Amendment provides (in part) that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. If Congress violated the First Amendment, passed a law that prohibited all political speech that disparages the political party in power, and prohibited judicial review of its unconstitutional law . . . the entire constitution would be rendered ineffective. No one can reasonably argue that Article III, Section 2, Subsection 2, of the Constitution can be interpreted to render the constitution meaningless . . . that would be absurd.

Adjudication of the constitutionality of congressional enactments is within the exclusive province of the judicial branch and Congress may not strip the courts of that power.

See also WEBSTER v. DOE, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)

Quote:

Petitioner maintains that, no matter what the nature of respondent's constitutional claims, judicial review is precluded by the language and intent of 102(c). In petitioner's view, all Agency employment termination decisions, even those based on policies normally repugnant to the Constitution, are given over to the absolute discretion of the Director, and are hence unreviewable under the APA. We do not think 102(c) may be read to exclude review of constitutional claims. We emphasized in Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974), that where Congress intends to preclude judicial review of constitutional claims its intent to do so must be clear. Id., at 373-374. In Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975), we reaffirmed that view. We require this heightened showing in part to avoid the "serious constitutional question" that would arise if a federal statute were construed to deny any judicial forum for a colorable constitutional claim. See Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 681 , n. 12 (1986).

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/486/592.html

If a federal statute was clearly and convincingly construed to deny judicial review of constitutional claims, the federal statute itself would be unconstitutional.

CONGRESS can pass any law it wants to pass within its limited powers. But Congress may not pass unconstitutional laws. The Courts will always have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of congressional enactments.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And I have intentionally chosen not to get into the nitty gritty of what is and what is and is not appropriate for Congress to do. My whole point is that the left sees Delay behaving with a motive and purpose that I don't think they've made a case for. It takes a pretty strong leap of faith to pull some incidental phrases out of an interview and extrapolate from them that his intent is to dismantle the courts and the Constitution.

Incidental phrases? ROFL

Delay has clearly stated his views concerning Congressional power to oversee the judiciary and the reasons why he wants Congress to oversee the judiciary. These statements are not incidental phrases. They are the meat and potatoes of his entire agenda. According to DeLay, the reason we have separation of church and state, judicial review, and the right of privacy (all of which he claims is not secured by the Constitution) is because Congress was not zealous in its efforts to stop the courts.

What about the proposed "constitutional restoration act" that DeLay wants passed? This proposed act provides that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over "any matter" regarding public officials who acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." He wants to eliminate judicial review of First Amendment issues. The proposed law would make any judge who reviewed such cases subject to impeachment.

"Incidental phrases" my foot. You know better than that. All you have to do is google DeLay and read . . . and you will see there was absolutely nothing incidental about the phrases he used to set forth his political agenda.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

It is the Constitution but to use it would make you a radical? I thought using the Constitution was the American way of life. I would say to continue the use the fillibuster is being radical because it isn't in the Constitution.

At least some of what Delay is doing is Constitutional!

I will address your question, even though the cases above cited by Debra Law make it a moot point-what DeLay is implying has been tried and failed before.

Yes, Baldimo, even if Congress had the power to just simply decide which matters the courts, including the Supreme Court, may decide, yet had refused to use that power for over 200 years, then for Congress to commence using that power now would be a radical thing to do.

Because, based on that refusal of Congress to use that power, a Constitutional process has come into being which has worked for 200 years. For Congress to simply decide which matters the courts can and cannot decide would radically change that process. Hence, it would be a radical step-even if they could do that. Even if was Constitutional. You can be Constitutional and still radical.

Again, the posts by Debra Law make the issue moot. Congress cannot simply pass laws deciding what the Supreme Court can and cannnot decide, and expect it to stick.

0 Replies

Okay, if we're going to condemn Delay for his support of the CRA, lets at least look at his rationale. My interest here is fairness and accuracy, not advocacy. Of course as Debra knows, and has thus far considered wrong headed, I personally in principle do favor the intent of the CRA. The devil is always in the details and individual interpretations, however, so the debate on it has been interesting.

Here's one explanation of the CRA along with references to Congress's relationship to the Judiciary.

Exerpt

Quote:

A. No. Use by Congress of Article III regulation of the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts is provided by the Constitution as a check on the Judicial Branch when it exceeds its jurisdiction. When federal courts prohibit the acknowledgment of God they deny the very source of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our founding fathers specifically recognized in the Declaration of Independence as unalienable rights given by God. To prohibit a state official from recognizing God is a violation of the Tenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. If Congress cannot make a law restricting states from the acknowledgment of God under the First Amendment, how can the Supreme Court enforce a law which Congress cannot make? The CRA would restore the balance of power among the various branches of government and restore the fundamental precepts upon which our Constitution and government is based.

Judge Roy Moore Introduces Constitution Restoration Act 2004

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Feb. 13, 2004 - Alabama's Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville) join with former Chief Justice Roy S. Moore in introducing the Constitution Restoration Act 2004 to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States.

Q. What is the purpose of this bill?

A. The purpose of the CRA is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States. The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the "organic law" of our Country by United States Code Annotated. The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government. The acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal courts. The CRA also protects and preserves the Constitution of the United States by restricting federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign jurisdictions and international law as the supreme law of our land.

Q. Does this bill reverse Supreme Court precedent?

A. To the extent that any decision of the United States Supreme Court or that of any federal district court made prior to or after the effective date of the Act prohibits the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government, such precedent would not be binding on state courts.

Q. Does this bill intrude into the constitutional powers of the federal judiciary?

A. No. Use by Congress of Article III regulation of the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts is provided by the Constitution as a check on the Judicial Branch when it exceeds its jurisdiction. When federal courts prohibit the acknowledgment of God they deny the very source of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our founding fathers specifically recognized in the Declaration of Independence as unalienable rights given by God. To prohibit a state official from recognizing God is a violation of the Tenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. If Congress cannot make a law restricting states from the acknowledgment of God under the First Amendment, how can the Supreme Court enforce a law which Congress cannot make? The CRA would restore the balance of power among the various branches of government and restore the fundamental precepts upon which our Constitution and government is based.

Q. Does the CRA promote an establishment of religion?

A. No. The right to acknowledge God is not and never has been the establishment of religion. According to the United States Congress, in the 1954 legislation placing "Under God" in the Pledge: "A distinction must be made between the existence of religion as an institution and a belief in the sovereignty of God." The actions of state and federal officials from the adoption and implementation of the First Amendment illustrate that the acknowledgment of God was never intended to be prohibited by the First Amendment. Even the First Congress (which agreed on the words of the First Amendment) on September 25, 1789, adopted a resolution on that very day asking President Washington to declare a day of thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God for the peaceful manner in which the Constitution was formed. From that time to the present, both state and federal officials have continuously acknowledged God in oaths, prayers, and official ceremonies. Eight days after Congress requested the president to declare a day of thanksgiving and prayer, President Washington did exactly that on October 3, 1789, in his first Presidential Proclamation, stating, "Whereas, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor . . .."

Q. Does the CRA deny other faiths in America?

A. No. The freedom of conscience and right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience are the very objects guaranteed by the First Amendment. Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution regarding the First Amendment stated: "The rights of conscience are indeed beyond the reach of human power, they are given by God and cannot be encroached upon by any human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural as well as of revealed religion."

Q. What are the practical effects of CRA on pending legislation?

A. This bill would cover all present bills before Congress regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments, National Motto "In God We Trust," and all other acknowledgments of God. Furthermore, this bill would preserve freedom of conscience and equal treatment under law guaranteed by the Constitution by restricting federal intrusion into our right to acknowledge God. People are never to be judged on their thoughts in a court of law and the right to believe as one chooses is a right given by God, not by government.

Q. Does the CRA affect the religious test provisions of Article VI?

A. No. The right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of one's conscience should never be used as a test or standard for people to seek or hold public office.

Q. What would prevent the United States Supreme Court from declaring the CRA unconstitutional?

A. The authority of Congress under Article III is specifically enumerated and cannot be questioned by another branch of government. Should the Supreme Court resort to the law of foreign nations or the European Court of Human Rights for authority, impeachment and removal from office are appropriate remedies. Conflict between the various branches of government is not without historic precedent. The control of funding and power of impeachment are traditional controls over the Judiciary by Congress. Separation of powers is a critical part of our Constitution; nevertheless, something more egregious happens when a branch of government intrudes its powers into the freedom of conscience to acknowledge God secured by the First Amendment. James Madison spoke of such an intrusion when he stated in the Memorial and Remonstrance: "The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power may be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves." Thomas Jefferson also spoke of such an intrusion in his Bill for Religious Freedom when he stated: "That to suffer the Civil Magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and restrain the profession or propagation of opinions on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty." This portion of Jefferson's Bill for religious freedom was, in fact, quoted by the United States Supreme Court in 1878 in United States v. Reynolds as a violation of what properly belonged to the church and not the state.

Q. What is the strength of the CRA?

A. The CRA will be supported by all those who oppose judicial tyranny as well as all those who respect individual rights and the right of every state to acknowledge God. This is not restricted to a political party or persuasion.

Q. Why is the English common law not excluded from consideration of federal courts in interpreting and applying the Constitution?

A. The common law is incorporated by reference into the United States Constitution, in the 7th Amendment and remains a foundation of American jurisprudence and an integral part of the organic law of the land. Our American common law is largely derived from the more than millennia-long tradition of English common law and constitutionalism, including the Magna Carta.

Q. What is the meaning of "acknowledgment of God" in the CRA?

A. The public recognition of God by state and federal authorities exists today in oaths, mottos , documents, prayers, monuments, and various other medium. Even in our "organic law," the Declaration of Independence, according to the United States Code Annotated, God is the very source of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and government authority. The CRA would preserve and restore the Godly basis of our law and government.

Q. What does the right to acknowledge God have to do with foreign law?

A. The acknowledgment of God and absolute standards distinguishes us from other nations and political systems. The source of American law cannot be replaced by laws of foreign jurisdictions which base their authority on secular principles.

Q. How does the CRA affect each and every individual?

A. In 1952, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Zorach v. Clauson that, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a belief in a Supreme Being." During the last fifty years, federal courts have excluded prayers in public schools, Ten Commandments in public buildings, manger scenes at Christmas, and even the Pledge of Allegiance in school classrooms. Even as late as 1984, the United States Supreme Court struck down a state statute in Alabama which allowed a moment of silence "or voluntary prayer." These examples have one thing in common: "the acknowledgment of God." The CRA would restore our right to acknowledge God and stop the ACLU and other liberal groups from bringing frivolous suits simply because they are "offended" because there is a God and a higher law. Our children would be free to pray before eating lunch in their schools, public officials would be free to acknowledge the God upon Whom they take their oath, and the moral basis of our law regarding marriage could not be altered by judicial activism.
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1644862

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

......I personally in principle do favor the intent of the CRA.

Will somebody please tell me when it became normal for people, in the course of their workday, to insist that they have the right to break out in praise at any moment? I mean, the boss only asks you to show up on time, pay a reasonable amount of attention to what you are doing for eight hours and then go home, where you can pray, sing and talk in tongues to your heart's content.

But no, that's not enough. Going through a full eight hours without praying is way too much to ask of these people. They have to go to the Supreme Court and demand prayer breaks lest their "rights" be violated. You can't build a building to try people for axe murdering without putting the Bible on the walls. People who are completely free to join whatever church pleases them still insist that they require religious clubs in public schools-shouldn't the Catholic club be held in the Catholic church? The Lutheran club inthe Lutheran church, etc?

What games are people playing here?

Foxfyre wrote:

The devil is always in the details and individual interpretations, however, so the debate on it has been interesting.

In this case, where the major thrust is the dismantling of the Constitutional system as it has been practiced for over 200 years, the devil starts from the beginning of this noxious bill to the very end.

0 Replies

I think both your assumptions are wrong KW. There is no suggestion in the CRA that employees can violate company rules or decorum or be disruptive in the workplace in order to praise God any more than they can do that to praise the Lakers. Nor is there any suggestion that the Constiution be dismantled.

The entire premise of the CRA is this:
If Congress cannot make a law restricting states from the acknowledgment of God under the First Amendment, how can the Supreme Court enforce a law which Congress cannot make?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The CRA would restore our right to acknowledge God and stop the ACLU and other liberal groups from bringing frivolous suits simply because they are "offended" because there is a God and a higher law. Our children would be free to pray before eating lunch in their schools....http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1644862

Or, presumably, prayer meetings at those lunches.

And hey, why stop there? If you work for the Federal or state government, why not have prayer meetings before lunch as well? Same principle as schools. So if you live in a town that is mostly Baptist and you are Jewish, you can certainly feel free to remove yurself from all your fellow employees at the prayer luncheon, in the public lunchroom, at public expense.

It's not like that constitutes ostracism. Certainly not.

Why can't thse people just eat lunch like everyone else in industry? Why do they go to public places and demand to pray, pary, pray when they have their homes and churches to go to?

What's wrong with these people-they can't get through more than 4 hours at a time without giving in to a compulsion to pray in public buildings?

0 Replies

I think they should stop pussyfooting around and just say "Jesus''. This using the word God instead of just saying Jesus is a waste of time, don't you think? I mean I know they are trying to make nice with the people who haven't found Christ yet, but since we know they will sometime, why don't the writers of that CRA thing just make it Jesus all the time? Right?

Unless you believe that the powers of government spring, not from imaginary beings, but from the will of We, the People of the United States.

Still, it would be nice to have prayer vigils at work and open the World Series by having the crowd sing "What a Friend we have in Jesus." I was going to say have the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing, but I found out a few years ago that they aren't really Jesus believers like me and Tom DeLay and George W. Bush. All the people who aren't washed in the blood could just sit while the rest of us sing, it will still be a free country.

Unless you believe that the powers of government spring, not from imaginary beings, but from the will of We, the People of the United States.

And I'm not in favor of this silent prayer either, are you? No sense hiding your light under a bushel, we should be loud about how our lives depend on knowing the will of Jesus Lord God.

Joe(yeah. that will be better.)Nation

0 Replies

KW,
Are you saying that Muslims,who by their religion are REQUIRED to pray several times a day,should ingore their own beliefs,just so they can hold a job?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think both your assumptions are wrong KW. There is no suggestion in the CRA that employees can violate company rules or decorum or be disruptive in the workplace in order to praise God any more than they can do that to praise the Lakers. Nor is there any suggestion that the Constiution be dismantled.

The entire premise of the CRA is this:
If Congress cannot make a law restricting states from the acknowledgment of God under the First Amendment, how can the Supreme Court enforce a law which Congress cannot make?

Foxfyre:

The entire premise of the CRA is false.

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise of religion.

If Congress enacted a law that it is forbidden from enacting by the Constitution, then the Court would be required to declare it unconstitutional.

The First Amendment is made applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution, therefore, prevents both federal and state government from encroaching on the free exercise of religion, and from sponsoring, supporting, or actively involving itself with a particular religion or religion in general. The people have absolute freedom of religious belief and non-belief.

Free exercise of religion is protected throughout the United States if the belief is sincerely held and is a religious belief of any kind. The belief or practice need not be part of an organized religion or sect, and the belief need not even include a belief in Deity. Thus, non-traditional religions--including individualistic religions, indigenous religions, polytheism, secular humanism, agnosticism, and atheism--are all protected to the same degree as traditional organized monotheistic religions. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (1993); Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 489 U.S. 829 (1989); Callahan v. Woods, 658 F.2d 679 (9th Cir. 1981). Courts will not judge the truth or falsity of any belief or doctrine. U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944).

Individuals are free to acknowledge God all day long in their homes and their churches and on every street corner. Individuals are free to believe that the ONE GOD that they worship in their monotheistic religions is "the very source of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our founding fathers specifically recognized in the Declaration of Independence as unalienable rights given by God." NEVERTHELESS, the Government is required to remain SECULAR. The Courts will not judge the truth or falsity of this belief or doctrine. But government officials are not allowed to sponsor, support, or actively involve itself with this particular monotheistic religious belief. This applies to BOTH federal and state government officials.

A law or governmental decision which operates to support a particular religious belief to the exlusion of other beliefs (including nonbelief) is unlawful discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection and Non-Establishment Clauses. See Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982). Remember, the First Amendment is Applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress has power to enact legislation to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. Section 1983:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

Accordingly, Section 1983 can be invoked in private suits against state officials before the United States federal courts to address religious discrimination claims.

Therefore, it is entirely FALSE when the sponsors of the "Constitutional Restoration Act" claim the following: "To prohibit a state official from recognizing God is a violation of the Tenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."

A Section 1983 claim against a state official to enjoin a violation of the First Amendment does NOT violate the Tenth Amendment nor the First Amendment.

Perhaps the sponsors of the CRA can fool the general public with their ridiculous rhetoric, but anyone educated in constitutional law can poke giant holes in every statement they make.

Thus, their initial premise is FALSE: "If Congress cannot make a law restricting states from the acknowledgment of God under the First Amendment, how can the Supreme Court enforce a law which Congress cannot make." It is false because the Supreme Court has judicial power to enforce the Constitution. It is false because NEITHER Congress nor the States may constitutionally sponsor or endorse the religious belief / acknowledgment of the God of monotheistic religion as the very source of our liberties. Congress HAS enacted laws providing remedies to individuals for violations of the First Amendment by government entities and state officials. Our federal courts have the judicial power to declare acknowledgments of God constitutional or unconstitutional according to First Amendment standards.

If all of their premises are FALSE, their entire argument in support of the CRA fails.

0 Replies

Debra,
Clarify this statement..."But government officials are not allowed to sponsor, support, or actively involve itself with this particular monotheistic religious belief. This applies to BOTH federal and state government officials."

Does this mean that govt officials are not allowed to have religious beliefs,or does this mean that govt officials are not allowed to express those beliefs?

If they arent allowed to express those beliefs,even at work,doesnt that in itself constitute a violation of the law?

And if they are not allowed to have beliefs,doesnt that violate the free exercise clause also?

You need to clarify your meaning on that point.
What about Muslims,whose religion requires that they pray several times a day?
Are they not allowed to follow their religious beliefs,if they are govt employees?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Debra,
Clarify this statement..."But government officials are not allowed to sponsor, support, or actively involve itself with this particular monotheistic religious belief. This applies to BOTH federal and state government officials."

Does this mean that govt officials are not allowed to have religious beliefs,or does this mean that govt officials are not allowed to express those beliefs?

There are no religious tests for public office.

If a state official has religious beliefs, in what manner would he/she desire to express those beliefs during the course of his/her official duties?

If the clerk of court (a state actor) required me to pray with her every time I went to the courthouse to file a pleading -- and I don't want to pray with her -- if I just want to transact my business -- then I could obtain an injunction against the clerk under Section 1983 to enjoin her from forcing me to engage in prayer simply to file my damn papers. In that case, she would not be allowed to express her beliefs by imposing prayer upon me.

If your child's public school teacher requires your child to sit through a short prayer every morning when school commences -- and your child doesn't want public prayer imposed upon her in the classroom -- then you could go to court on behalf of your child and obtain an injunction against the teacher (a state actor) from imposing prayer upon your child. In that case, she would not be allowed to express her beliefs by imposing prayer upon the children.

Quote:

If they arent allowed to express those beliefs,even at work,doesnt that in itself constitute a violation of the law?

How so? No one is interfering with the state official's or state actor's beliefs . . . they just can't impose those beliefs on others.

Quote:

And if they are not allowed to have beliefs,doesnt that violate the free exercise clause also?

State officials / actors can have whatever beliefs they desire to have. There are no religious tests.

Quote:

What about Muslims,whose religion requires that they pray several times a day? Are they not allowed to follow their religious beliefs,if they are govt employees?

SEE:
Workplace religious liberty

Quote:

In litigation, many public employers assert that they silenced an employee’s religious expression to avoid an establishment-clause conflict. The argument is that if the employer allows employees to speak about their religious faith on the job, the public will believe that the employer is sanctioning or endorsing the religious views.

In Knight, the state argued that allowing employees profess their religious faith to clients raised a church-state separation issue. The 2nd Circuit agreed, writing: “This permits the state to place a slight burden on appellants’ speech: Knight and Quental may not share their religious beliefs with clients while conducting state business.”

“In the federal workplace, you have Title VII and the First Amendment,” says Jeremy Leaming, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State and former First Amendment Center staff writer. “But this does not give a government employee the unfettered right to proselytize in the workplace. As a state employee, [one] has a duty to uphold the rights of visiting members of the public. The employee abdicates his First Amendment rights to a certain degree when representing a public employer.”

Lower courts have reached differing conclusions when balancing an employee’s right to religious expression with an employer’s duty to not violate the establishment clause. Richards writes: “In sum, without any guidance from the Supreme Court, many of the federal circuits have applied a version of the Pickering balancing analysis. Circuits have afforded varying levels of deference to the employer’s fear of an Establishment Clause violation, resulting in factually similar cases with dissimilar results.”

The cases often focus on whether the employee proselytized his or her religious faith to co-workers or to the public. Courts are far more likely to find an establishment-clause violation if the employee proselytizes to the public.

0 Replies

KW writes

Quote:

What's wrong with these people-they can't get through more than 4 hours at a time without giving in to a compulsion to pray in public buildings?

"These people" might be muttering as to why 'other people" can't get through more than 4 hours at a time without discussing sports or politics or the weather or their funny uncle. What difference does it make to you what other people do so long as they are not violating any laws or company policy?

If I am interpreting the gist of the CRA correctly, it seems to be saying, however, that if you can burst out in praise of the Lakers and that does not violate policy, then neither does somebody bursting out in praise of God violate policy. In other words, you can't discriminate against people just because they express religious beliefs.

Despite Joe's comments, I see nothing in the CRA that suggests that anyone is required or encouraged to be any more religious than they are now or that any particular religion is advocated or that polytheistic religions shall be discriminated against. (In fact, I thnk polytheistic religions already are much less discriminated against than are monotheistic ones.)

And Debra, your arguments are well stated as always, but I am resisting what I think is your definition of 'establishment of religion'. I have long thought that allowing religious symbols or expressions was in no way an 'establishment of religion' but only a policy that would reward any particular belief or favor a religious belief over another belief would violate the 'no establishment of religion' clause. I have never bought into the theory that 'no establishment of relgion' means 'no exposure to religion'.

To say that people have churches and homes they can go to and they should confine their religious expressions there isn't much different than saying people have stadiums and homes they can go to and they should confine their comments about their sports teams there.

0 Replies

A "Fuming" John Kerry

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know