?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Oh...my...word... - A Suburbs Boy Living a Country Life — LiveJournal [My Flickr Photos]
March 12th, 2004
06:11 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
Oh...my...word...
Write Your Representative right now in opposition of HR.3799 and S.2082. They basically say that:

"2/12/2004--Introduced.

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government or officer of such government by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than the constitutional law and English common law.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution."
This one is BAD NEWS people...talk about your "slippery slopes."

(17 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:cz_unit
Date:March 12th, 2004 04:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*giggle*

*laugh*

Ok, done. Let's think about this for oh.... a second here. The US Constitution guarantees that this would be thrown out on the day it came into being. Kind of like legislation forbidding gravity or somesuch.

This is simply one of those piles of crap that people can vote "for" and then trumpet about how they are "Pro God". Complete waste of time.

CZ
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 12th, 2004 05:55 pm (UTC)

we should start recall campaigns...

(Link)
...for the sponsors, if not for all who vote Aye...I mean doesn't swearing an oath to uphold the constitution come in somewhere here?
[User Picture]
From:cz_unit
Date:March 12th, 2004 06:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well, yeah. I always thought that legislators should be brought up on charges of high Treason for passing legislation so blatantly at odds with the Constitution. It always reminds me of Haig's "I'm in charge now" coup d'etat.

Chris
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 12th, 2004 08:00 pm (UTC)

heh...

(Link)
I even have found that his comment was really quite accurate...he was answering a different question--like not "who's CINC now?" was the question, but he thought he was answering "Who's in charge HERE--like senior person in the room at the moment..."
[User Picture]
From:juuro
Date:March 12th, 2004 10:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Guarantees? Hm.

Would not be the first time that an unconstitutional law has been enacted and even enforced.

Oh yes, eventually it will be made nil and void. Perhaps five, perhaps fifty years later.

It must never be allowed to pass in the first place.
It should never have been proposed.

It is the duty of the constituency to create for the legislators an atmosphere conducive to making appropriate proposals.

Yeah, yeah, I'm a foreigner, not even resident in the States. But the States have at times been looked at as an example of Western democracy. It is painful to see the current trend towards shari'a.
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 13th, 2004 05:50 am (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly!

(Link)
We need to fight this one and expose the people who dared try to perpetrate this assault on our democracy.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:March 12th, 2004 09:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 13th, 2004 05:51 am (UTC)

I give up!

(Link)
that's bizarre...
[User Picture]
From:libidoergosum
Date:March 13th, 2004 05:43 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm sorry happypete, this is not a slippery slope. This is a balls-out attempt of the right wing to start creating a theocracy in the United States. There is no ambiguity here, this is an full frontal assault on Judicial Review, the biggest of the checks and balances that was woven into our constituion to prevent tyranny. I will do everything that a soldier is allowed to do to prevent this from becoming law (of course, the Supreme Court will throw it out on Judicial review).
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 13th, 2004 05:47 am (UTC)

Yeah...

(Link)
they would need a constitutional amendment on this one, for certain...one that I hope would never pass.
[User Picture]
From:libidoergosum
Date:March 13th, 2004 06:05 am (UTC)

Re: Yeah...

(Link)
you're absolutely correct... I have a hard time puting together how they can call this "Defense of the Constitution" when it's an all-out attempt to shred it and mutate The Constitution into a patsy for the religious right. I'm FUCKING PISSED about this one. Not surprisingly it was started by an idiot from Alabama. Yet another reason why the south is the laughing-stock of the rest of the nation.
[User Picture]
From:marveen
Date:March 22nd, 2004 08:01 am (UTC)
(Link)
And then H. R. 3920 will allow for Congress to override the Supreme Court's decision.

I'm starting to get scared here, people.
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 22nd, 2004 08:36 am (UTC)

it's really bad...

(Link)
and may get worse...

hopefully we'll have enough brave senators willing to filibuster these things to death.
[User Picture]
From:libidoergosum
Date:March 22nd, 2004 03:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The SCOTUS will throw it out before it has a chance to become law... The law in and of itself is unconstitutional. But it IS best to get this bill killed before we have to get that far.
[User Picture]
From:marveen
Date:March 22nd, 2004 07:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The SCOTUS will throw it out before it has a chance to become law...

I wish I could believe it were that simple. Doesn't a law have to be 1) passed and 2) challenged before it's brought before the Supreme Court?

And even then you have the twin problems (old & new)--the old is the case of Worcester v. Georgia, where the court held for the Cherokee, declaring them to be "a distinct community, occupying its territory," which the people of Georgia had no right to enter without Cherokee consent. President Jackson famously said in reply to this, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

The new problem is that the legislation in question allows Congress to overturn Supreme Court decisions. What's to prevent them from overriding the SCOTUS decision that this law is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court itself?

I do hope you and others are right, that this will just die in committee. But I'm not by nature an optimist.
[User Picture]
From:libidoergosum
Date:March 23rd, 2004 04:28 am (UTC)
(Link)
I, by nature am cynical and pessimistic. Although, my faith in the SCOTUS is unshakeable. As for congress, I think it would be political suicide for them to pass things like these... Every minority would rise up and vote them out of office (hopefully). It's a tricky situation.
[User Picture]
From:tomcatshanger
Date:March 26th, 2004 09:16 am (UTC)
(Link)
The Supreme Court has to agree to see the case first. It's truly amazing how many cases they turn down a year.

Sorta like all the gun control issues they won't address. Turning away from one amendment is the start of turning away from any inconvenient amendment.
[User Picture]
From:libidoergosum
Date:March 26th, 2004 10:28 am (UTC)
(Link)
I don't think they would turn down a case where their judicial authority is being removed.
Powered by LiveJournal.com