Supreme Court? We Don't Need No Stinking Supreme Court

[Coot]

Y'all ain't gonna believe this shit...err sorry. Ahem...this is unreal. If you go to http://thomas.loc.gov (http://thomas.loc.gov/) and do a search for HR 3799 and S.2082, you will find some extremely disturbing pending legislation. This legislation serves to severely limit the recourse of citizens against the government, by effectively rendering the courts impotent. I'll duplicate the Senate version here, as the two are identical. This just scares the bejeezus out of me and I'm generally fearless. Holy fuxor, talk about all power to Caesar!

<CENTER>108th CONGRESS</CENTER>

<CENTER>2d Session</CENTER>

<CENTER>S. 2082</CENTER>

<TTITLE>To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.</TTITLE>

<CENTER>IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES</CENTER>

<CENTER>February 12, 2004</CENTER>



Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. MILLER, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. ALLARD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

<HR>

<CENTER>A BILL</CENTER>

<BTITLE>To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.</BTITLE>


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'.


<CENTER>TITLE I--JURISDICTION</CENTER>



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.


<CENTER>TITLE II--INTERPRETATION</CENTER>



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 English constitutional and common law.


<CENTER>TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT</CENTER>



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.

[ShinyTop]

The local fish wrapper and on line site Gulf1 have letters to the editor claiming this bill is the only salvation for the country. FM's all. I wonder what they will say when somebody they disagree with gets that power to limit court action. FM's all. They will not be happy til we are a Southern Baptist Afghanistan.

[Coot]

I noticed Lindsay Graham is a co-sponsor on the Senate version. He's got some political coin to trade...I wonder if he's got enough to get it out of committee or is this just a way to appease the religous fanatics?

[saber11]

Something like that would require a constitutional ammendment. Which would be very difficult if not impossibe

[Coot]

Something like that would require a constitutional ammendment. Which would be very difficult if not impossibe
That makes absolutely no sense at all. If it were to get passed, who in the hell would be left to find it unconstitutional? As soon as the court tried to hear it (unless they were born again Christians), they'd be slapped in irons and carted off to jail.

[ethics]

`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.'

The Right is trumpetting (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111706,00.html) this as the most important legislation in 50 years (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/chuckwagon.html). There is little critical commentary out there (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/7989092.htm).

But if this law passes -- and is upheld by the Supreme Court -- the world will change, radically. Is a judge handing out biblical sentences? That's his privilege, and it can't be reviewed by the federal courts. Is a state refusing to employ anyone who is not Christian? That's A-OK by these guys. A sarcastic :thumbsup:

According to Judge Moore of the Ten Commandments in the Rotunda fame, this law would pass constitutional muster (http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/IntroToConstitutionRestorationAct.html). I did not find any unbiased analysis of the act. While this likely will not pass, the theory that we can remove the checks and balances imposed by the US Constitution using legislation appears to be quite frightening.

I would think that people, ESPECIALLY the right, would know a thing or two about Theocracy. But I guess it's MY God, not theirs and that makes it ok.

As an Atheist, I am all for giving people their religious freedoms. But when I see things like this, I scatter to my corner and attack rather than flee.

[jfcjrus]

GOOD GRIEF!

Just WHERE is all this coming from?
What the heck did I miss?

Was this country not FOUNDED upon keeping religious 'beliefs' OUT of the LAW of the land?
In that, our 'government' will not sanction one religion over another?
(commonly refered to as 'seperation of church and state')
In that, this country's citizens will have the 'freedom' to worship as they wish, but their government will, basically, NOT take sides in one religion over another?
In that, FREEDOM from 'religious' persecution (as in the England, or Colonys of old), was one of the main reasons for the settlement of this land, in the first place?
In that, various religious BELIEFS will, by THE CONSTITUTION of this land, NOT determine the LAW of the land?

But, perhaps, I'm misinformed about what the founding of this USA was all about (other than TAXATION, which is another point, for another thread ;) )

I just don't understand.
Just WHEN did GOD'S will (or belief in such devine power) become such a focus with the lawmakers of our country?

To me, these proposals are simply stunning.
Have any of their proponents actually READ the CONSTITUTION of this land, that they've SWORN to uphold when they took office as our representatives?

Just wondering what's going on, as of late.
Regards,

[mikepd]

Promote Federalism? WTF does this have to do with federalism? It has everything to do with ramming religion down the public's throat and take away the right to believe or not believe as you wish.

This is a mockery of everything our country stands for and is as big a joke as the buffoons that wrote it. Pat Robertson must be doing handstands over this one.

The only way something like this piece of drek would get passed is the way they always do something like this- in secret, attached to some other bill with as little fanfare as possible.

I tell you this country is heading toward a Second American Civil War and I may just yet see it in my lifetime if these fools keep doing stunts like this.

What comes next after they pass this, the re-education camps? Since this is the 21st century, no piece of colored cloth for me, so when do I get my special ID card that marks me as a 'person of interest'?

God Help America.

[saber11]

This could pose an intersting situation now that I think about it.

Suppose this would pass. The supreme court would rule it unconstitutional. So then congress cuts off funding to the court to disolve it.

The court refuses to disolve, and sequesters themselves in the court. The Justice department is ordered to prosecute them.

What if no federal court will hear the charges? Because the appeals process won't work? Interesting paradox.

[ethics]

The three branches are intricate and vital to the whole constitution. If any branch attempted to dissolve another, you will see Leon and his family rise up in a most serious way.

This isn't USSR, and it isn't Iran, if those people were content or were fearsome of what would happen to them, it will never be me. I am sorry, but I'd rather die for something like the US, for this cause, than to sit around and HOPE that things will change on their own. I've seen what sitting around and waiting on the wing of hope does.

[Stiofán]

After further review, I really don't see what the big deal about this is. It basically says two things, and two things only.

First, if a body or official acknowledges "God" as a source of law, they can't be sued or it can't be thrown out soley because of that. It doesn't say who's God or anything, doesn't say anyone has to believe in God, just that if someone says "this is our God Given Right to ......... you fill in the blanks, you can't throw out the law only becasue of that God tinged statement. I could live without that provision, but I don't think it portends the doom as has been suggested here. There probably are literally thousands of laws on the books in local, state and even federal juristictions that fall into that category, most of which were likely passed in the 19th and early 20th century.

The second provison is by my view the meatier of the two. It basically says we won't be using UN mandates, shira law, ICJ, etc. rulings to base our constiutional tests upon. Use English common law and our own Constitution, period, as has always been done.

Am I missing something here? Show me the error of my ways, folks. I'm open to your opining.

[Sierra Mike]

Am I missing something here? Show me the error of my ways, folks. I'm open to your opining.
About the subject of this thread, or can we open up the zone a little bit? :haha:

SM

[Stiofán]

About the subject of this thread. On other matters, especially as they relate to your unique proclivities, Mr. Moore, I'd say I'm pretty much in pucker mode.

[Fiona]

First, if a body or official acknowledges "God" as a source of law, they can't be sued or it can't be thrown out soley because of that. so this says that if you use a GOD as law... THAT can be thrown out? or can't

i'm so muddled.

so this is a case on law and order. what would happen? The woman says she did not "murder" the child, she was only doing what God told her to do... and the child died, during the "thingie."

[Stiofán]

No, I don't think it has anything to do with that.

[Fiona]

No, I don't think it has anything to do with that.ok- good... then let me know the outcome... and i'll just stay blonde :P


teehee

[Techie2000]

This could pose an intersting situation now that I think about it.

Suppose this would pass. The supreme court would rule it unconstitutional. So then congress cuts off funding to the court to disolve it.

The court refuses to disolve, and sequesters themselves in the court. The Justice department is ordered to prosecute them.

What if no federal court will hear the charges? Because the appeals process won't work? Interesting paradox.Then the courts are rendered ineffective. The legilative and executive branches are left as the only ones effective. Since the courts are not there to help rule on the law, anarchy ensues. The President declares martial law. Civil war breaks out. California becomes annexed by Mexico. Texas secedes from the Union. Oh the possibilities are quite complex, and very scary...

[Coot]

Acknowledging God as a source of law and granting no redress against a court that rules in that fashion?

[Coot]

Just think Mike, if the revolution does start, you get to put some of these assclowns up against the wall :happy: (provided we're winning)

and besides, I've seen the list...you were designated a 'person of interest' last year already :rolleyes:

[yazdzik]

Dear Friends,
The law in question is what is known as constructive revision. It cannot pass constitutional muster because its own passage would change that which it proposes to enact.
Since the statute involves jurisdiction of federal courts, the requirement is that it not conflict with the articles granting those courts authority. Since it does, it cannot be effective. Thus, unless the courts evaporate, and this is unlikely, given today's harsh reproach to theocracy, the passage of such a law, unlikely in itself, would result in an almost immediate nullification upon first effectuation.
No sane person would vote for it on the floor.
I suspect even its sponsors created it like the swimsuit issue of SI - an off topic soft porn for the masses.
Sort of like a Martin comment on politics.....

Best,
M

[Stiofán]

It's time to fess up. I don't really like this law either, but I posted above in order to get some vitriolic posts out of you guys. Coot almost jumped at the opportunity. Seems I can't even rile any of you up anymore.

I do agree with Martin, this thing hasn't a proverbial snowball's chance of surviving.