Chris Floyd-The Constitution Restoration Act -Must, Must Read

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

...snip...
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 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."
...snip...

http://www.tmtmetropolis.ru/index.php?aid=131199

This is one of the most frightening articles I've read in a long time.

:scared:

I'd like to let some of the Repubs. I know hear about this, but I doubt they'd believe it coming from a Russian site.

http://congress.org/congressorg/issuesaction/billlist/?keyword=the+constitution+restoration+act&submit.x=13&submit.y=10

Just read the bills quick but I'm not sure about the breadth of them as detailed by Mr. Floyd. Will read them over again.

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

Wasn't it the Federalist who thought the Bill of Rights was not needed in the Constitution?

Roy Moore is involved (no surprise there).

Pro:

"Proponents of this bill say it was designed to counter the radical judicial activism that has taken place in recent years to remove any reference to God in American society. They say legal decisions that disallow the mention of God's name in any public forum have become more prevalent in an effort to secularize government and remove moral standards in the law."

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/march/0302_constitution_restoration_act.shtml


Con:

Not only is this initiative an affront to Jefferson's wall of church-state separation, it clearly violates the constitutional separation of powers," continues Doerr. "Blanket removal of the necessary restrictions that prevent state sponsored favoritism toward particular religious traditions and slight others is undeniably unconstitutional.

http://www.arlinc.org/press/RoyMoore.html


The description of the bill makes it seem innocuous: "to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism."

A more appropriate title would be "The Constitution Demolition Act of 2004."

I'm sure there's much more out there on this subject. I just did a quick search.

involved its bound to fail. We here in Alabama,the intelligent ones, that is know all about good ol Roy. Were still payin his fuckin legal expenses.

What a putrid sickening website.

They can't limit the powers of another branch of government, can they? If it is just a law wouldn't the courts be able to overturn it? Wouldn't they have to pass a constitutional amendment to be able to pull something like this off?

But we will have to wait and see. It seems like it give congress a lot of leeway to punish judges who do not bow before their god.

precedence (unlawful co-mingling of religion and the law/government).

BUT -- what if Lemon were overturned itself while reviewing this case by a NEW batch of Supremes, appointed by potentially "elected" second termer, GW Bush? And a 8-1 ruling in favor of both the law and a new precedent where any religious interest could dictate the law on all citizens?

That's what could go wrong.

P.S. Imagine this scenario in Congress and the Senate. The bill is ready to be debated and voted upon. (Imagine debate time, ca. 45 minutes.)

One or two dems gets up and tries to remind his/her colleagues about the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers, the great tradition of religious neutrality in this country.

Then he/she/they are followed by a republican who slam dunks the debate with "You don't like God very much, do you."

Immediate vote: The bill passes as the representative/senator doesn't want to go on record voting against God.

That's how bad bills get passed: coercion. Very few courageous legislators will take the fall for protecting democratic values.

all Republicans, of course.

Mr. Lewis of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Everett, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Coble, Mr. Collins, Mr. Goode, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Kingston) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court
...
The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court?

(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.


http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_03_14_atrios_archive.html#107940187365575891

The biblicons are going to run this country into the shitter faster than we "immoral liberals" could ever accomplish. We are screaming towards the dark ages.

that this bill (actually both the house and senate bills) are nothing more than eyewash for the local constituencies, but one sponsor is retiring: Zell Miller. He has no need to pander for right-wing fundies for votes anymore.

So that leaves me with the conclusion that they are serious,DAMNED SERIOUS, about passing these bills this year.

If they do, we'll be looking at a religous civil war within five years.......