Is this as ominous as it sounds? (re: S.520)

S.520
Title: A bill to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Sponsor: Sen Shelby, Richard C. (introduced 3/3/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Related Bills: H.R.1070
Latest Major Action: 3/3/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/3/2005--Introduced.

Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - 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 entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent'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 English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.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.

Four co-sponsors:
Sen Brownback, Sam - 3/3/2005
Sen Burr, Richard - 3/3/2005
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 3/8/2005
Sen Lott, Trent - 3/8/2005

/bss/d109query.html|Thomas

gotta stop these guys!

At all costs.....

In response to my email to Brownback, I got a canned response that had nothing to do with the topic. I hope that saner Senators will vote this down.

I was unaware of this bill. What are the Dems saying in response? Are they going to bend over for this one too??

If your city government puts "Jesus Rules, Get Over It" on the letterhead or seal, and you are a minority, your only remedy is to sue for a violation of the establishment clause.

You could sue in your local state court under your state laws or the fed constitution, where it would be heard by a person elected by the same people who elected the city government or

the federal court, where its heard by a politically insulated judge.

congress can remove any or all of the jurisidiction of the federal district court, and take away that avenue. It just can. However, it is abundantly clear that the only purpose is do by procedure what it can't do with a vote, namely, allow cities to acknowledge God.

A bill can't remove Supreme Court jurisdiction, but it's incredible that the Congress would even try to keep the SCt from ruling on a constitutional matter. That removes the entire concept of judicial review of congress, since every constitutional provision could be put beyond the SCt by majority vote, and every bill could contain a proviso that it too is beyond the jurisdiction of the SCt.

Like I said, it can't work, but only someone looking for a way to get rid of that pesky constitution would try it.

http://www.renewamerica.us/news/040225baldwin.htm

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004: the most important legislation in the last fifty years
Would rein in the runaway courts

February 25, 2004
Chuck Baldwin




(Feb. 17) Last week, a bill was introduced in both chambers of Congress to "limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism." The House version is H.R. 3799, and the Senate version is S. 2082. The bill is titled, "The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004." Initial sponsors of the bill include Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL), Rep. Michael Pence (IN), Sen. Richard Shelby (AL), Sen. Zell Miller (GA), Sen. Sam Brownback (KS), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC). Even though the introduction of this bill received little national media attention, it is the most important legislation in the last fifty years.

I was privileged to be in attendance at the press conference in Prattville, Alabama when former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, Rep. Aderholt, Sen. Shelby, Sen. Brownback, and Ambassador Alan Keyes formally announced the introduction of this bill to the media. Also in attendance were conservative luminaries such as Phyllis Schlafly and Howard Phillips. The bill was drafted by a star-studded legal team including Chief Justice Moore's lead counsel, Herb Titus.

The passage of H.R. 3799 and S. 2082 should be regarded as the most important item on the conservative agenda this year! It is no hyperbole to say that the passage of this bill is significantly more important than who wins the White House this November. Yes, I really mean that.

You see, what difference does it make who wins a presidential or congressional election if neither party will faithfully discharge their duty to the U.S. Constitution? We have seen Republican and Democratic presidents come and go. The same goes for congressmen and senators. Yet, government continues to get bigger and bigger, while freedom gets smaller and smaller. Neither has either major party done anything to reverse the trend toward socialism and globalism.

One of the major reasons for this unfortunate set of circumstances is an out-of-control federal judiciary. For the last fifty years, federal courts have run roughshod over the Constitution. For all practical purposes, America is now controlled by a tyrannical oligarchy of federal judges.

Thankfully, our Founding Fathers understood this potentiality and prescribed a way for Congress to deal with the matter. Under Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power and authority to regulate and except appellate jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court. That is exactly what H.R. 3799 and S. 2082 do.

Accordingly, under Sec. 102 of this bill, "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 acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

This means, that the federal judiciary would be prohibited from interfering with any expression of religious faith by any elected local, state, or federal official. In other words, federal judges could not prevent the Ten Commandments from being displayed in public buildings or Nativity Scenes from appearing on court house lawns or "under God" from being recited in the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers being spoken in public schools, etc. This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts in these matters.

Furthermore, Sec. 201 of this bill 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."

In other words, the Supreme Court would be prohibited from basing their opinions on the rule of foreign law. This is especially needful as Supreme Court justices such as Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have demonstrated a recent propensity to do just that.

As you can see, this bill is needed in the worst way! And the encouraging thing is, it really does have a better than average chance of passing. In fact, at the press conference in Prattville, Sen. Shelby predicted the bill would pass the U.S. Senate. Rep. Aderholt feels confident it will pass the House as well.

Please contact your congressman and senators (and the White House) and tell them that your support for their reelections is dependent upon their support for this bill! There is nothing more important in politics this year than passing this bill into law! Not even the vote for President is more important. The federal judiciary must be reined in! It must be "bound down by the chains of the Constitution" (Jefferson). Passage of "The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" will begin this process. I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support this bill. I hope you will, too.

Interesting set of folks in attendance at the launch. :puke:

For a minute, I actually thought this was a really elaborate April Fools posting...

of this legislation. This is part of the wholesale selling of the American government: mega corporations will take what is profitable and the religious right will take our unique ideology. In the end, the rich will get much richer, and the poor will get Jesus. The middle class will get screwed.

That's fucking hilarious! Oh my God, Section 201 is just great. They need to read Ex Parte McCardle before they ever dream of passing this. Congress telling the courts how they're allowed to rule? Oh my God, that is too funny.

It's funny because even a Supreme Court of 9 Scalias would toss it out for infringing the sovereignty of the judiciary. Congress can't set standards for purely judicial functions.

and a rather large piece at that.

"In other words, the Supreme Court would be prohibited from basing their opinions on the rule of foreign law. This is especially needful as Supreme Court justices such as Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have demonstrated a recent propensity to do just that".

This is a major part of their insistent push toward a theocracy AND MUST BE STOPPED!

I am NOT opposed to religion in any way. However I DO NOT want ANYONE'S religion entering my government. The founding fathers knew this would happen sooner or later and set up safeguards against it. What they are proposing is to remove any or all of those safeguards.

NO! THIS SHALL NOT PASS! :grr:

One of the major reasons for this unfortunate set of circumstances is an out-of-control federal judiciary. For the last fifty years, federal courts have run roughshod over the Constitution. For all practical purposes, America is now controlled by a tyrannical oligarchy of federal judges

Do moderate Republicans understand that they have thrown in their lot with people who want a theocracy?

http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=145

Christian Coalition endorses Congressman Aderholt's "Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004", H.R. 3799
Congressman Robert Aderholt, (R-AL), a champion of the 10 Commandments in the U.S. Congress, has introduced the "Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004", H.R. 3799, "to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism." In the Title II portion of Congressman Aderholt's bill, it says: "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." His bill also provides for impeachment, conviction, and removal of judges for certain extra jurisdictional activities. The actions of 4 out-of-control state court judicial tyrants in Massachusetts and left-wingers on the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco who removed the "Pledge of Allegiance" from American schools because they were offended by the words "Under God" shows the critical need for this legislation. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-225-3121 or you can go to http://www.cc.org/legis/contactcongress.html and urge your Congressman to sponsor H.R. 3799, the "Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004".

"Do moderate Republicans understand that they have thrown in their lot with people who want a theocracy?"

Nope.Sadly moderate Republicans have a delusion that the Religous Right wackos only constitute some of the party as opposed being held hostage by them.

Reads like an anti-federal judiciary tract from a Posse Comitatus group. Only it doesn't dissolve all government above the county level. Wasn't this stuff considered so radical Right militia nonsense just a few years ago the FBI had to nip that bud?

Also, this kinda eviscerates an Article in the Constitution that makes International Treaties which have been signed and ratified part of domestic law. Not much respect shown by the signers for the separation of powers doctrine either.

:wow:

cannot find it on the ACLU website. I'd appreciate if someone else could also check ACLU in case I have missed something.

Did a quick once-over their site and went back through press releases:

http://www.aclu.org/focus.cfm?ContentStyle=1&num=6&subsiteID=58

Went back a few pages to the end of Feb. Not a peep. I guess before Schiavo, no one took this stuff seriously. Think they'd better start.

www.missonnotaccomplished.us

This one has been kicking around for a while.

Take your pick... (it better be the latter)

Have you read Thomas Frank's "What's the matter with Kansas?" I have never been to Kansas and found it very insightful, I can only imagine what wicked good read it would be for you.

A lot of good books have been published in the last 4 years. Right now I'm wading through Clinton's autobiography (off and on) while also reading Bernard Fall's "Hell in a very small place..." (written 1966).

Frank's book is on my list but maybe I should bump it up to second place so I can learn more about the place I live. From what I've read about his book, he's pretty much on target...

For example:
My wife works at a community college. A co-worker of hers told her last week that as she was walking down one of the college's hallways, she overheard two students talking with one saying to the other, "I wonder if I'll graduate before the Rapture..." :crazy:

Also, another co-worker who is Catholic, albeit disgusted with the Catholic Church's incursion into politics during 2004, told my wife that she will be voting "yes" next Tuesday on the proposal to amend the US Constitution to "protect marriage" (Kansas is voting on this GOP measure on April 5). She told my wife her "church" told her how she should vote. :crazy::crazy:

What can you do? :shrug:

As I was driving through the backwoods of WV today on the way to work I had an epiphany. Because of a book I am reading on poverty and because I have lived in a red state for the past two years I had an epiphany. The evangelical church is so successful in red America because it is basically form of cheap entertainment, which is a staple in the poverty culture. The piety of the person really doesn't matter it is more of a community social club. If the Dem's, grass roots or not, were to sponsor such things( in a not so visible way ie., "Blue Bull Rodeo", "Blue Steel Tool and Gun Show") as: four wheeler/dirt bike racing, rodeo, fishing/hunting contests, gun and tools shows, concerts, swap meets, democrat evangelical retreats, beer tents at college football games, etc. It would give us a platform to speak to the red staters. It is not as pushy or as much of a turn off as liberal radio or angry protesters. We have to stop pushing against red America and pull it toward us. Only then can we begin to change the minds of the brainwashed. A lot of ex Dem red staters say that they didn't leave the party, the party left them-it will help us to lose the "blue state elitist wall" between us - so let's go back to them on their terms and show them that "liberal" is not a dirty word and democrat liberals come in all shapes and forms. That we are the party of workers rights and health care for all, that we truly care about out fellow man and that the wing nuts are corporate whores who use distraction and manipulation to get people to vote against their own interests. Also, I am sure that there are plenty of devout Christian Dem's out there, we could have them at these events to show people that there is an alternative to repub corporate/political gain religion, let's actually care for the poor and the sick. It will give us a chance to get past the Blue state elitist liberal " sticker shock" and explain ourselves and what we stand for, it will give us a chance to get back voters who have turned to the dark side. At least it will give us a puncher's chance in the states that we lost in 2004. Also, we need to start ASAP with this or in '06 and '08 meeting them on their terms will again be a picture of Kerry or whoever duck hunting in $1000 camo. Which pushed more away than it brought in, it was so obviously political. The Dem's need to "keep it real" in the red states or we will never have any credibility again. It will be too little, too late! Let me know what you think.

we try to "reach" the "red staters", but they push US away. We TRY to convince them that they are voting against their best interests, but they push US away. They believe what they believe because of a reverse-elitist mind set.
Beer tents and swap meets, in my opinion, will appear as pandering, and if it's one thing they hate more than "liberal elitists" it's "pandering liberal elitists".
I know we shouldn't give up on them, but I'm ALREADY sick of bending over backward trying to sway them. Sooner or later they have to take the responsibility THEMSELVES to research what is REALLY going on in this country. They have to realize that they're being lied to and used, but they have to discover that for themselves, and they're not going to do it by watching FOX News.
THEY have to take responsibility for catching up to US. If they're too ignorant or distrustful, screw 'em. They'll find out the hard way that we're the party that is looking out for them.
That's just my opinion. You're as entitled to yours as I am mine. No disrespect meant, we're all in this together. ;)

What you describe is known as "event marketing" in the advertising/marketing world. It has been shown to be one of the most effective forms of reaching consumers with a brand message. Thinking about it more, your idea is nothing short of brilliant.

This would get the Dem brand message out to the masses--i.e., educate people a little bit about Dem issues in a fun, positive environment and resuscitate the Party in the eyes of the targeted audience. I would hope that, in addition, it would bring the Party closer to the base and educate *them* about *their* needs.

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.

you start a thread with this as a kind of proposal or open letter to the Dem Party. I know you got one guy's response, above, and mine...I'd love to see more, personally, to see if it flies with anyone else. If you want, and can't start your own thread yet, I'll start it for you.

Oh, and welcome to DU!

:hi:

We could do Loaves and Fishes magic shows, perhaps! Or Water Into Wine!

Seriously, I have long thought that if Democrats sent "missionaries" to conservative areas to minister to the needs of the people, there would be a groundswell of poor folk voting Democrat.

The dem party used to do that in spades exactly a century ago with all the new immigrant groups.

Vote for me and I'll give you decent housing, put some of you on my payroll, etc.

Forget the exact term - maybe someone can help.

I think they were called "machines".

Very instrumental in getting the dems into power - especially in the cities.

We need to develop "ward" leaders and "precinct" captains on a 365/24/7 basis - not just "activating" them a couple months before an election like we do now.

We need to develop LOCAL persons who are AVAILABLE to the other locals on a regular basis - and make that fact KNOWN!

We can and SHOULD learn from history!

be real or the most elaborate 4-1 joke ever.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1070

This is pitiful...outrageous.

And if this move forward they will probably write in something to say that it can't be appealed.

Are we doomed or are we going to wake up.

This people must have their own country. They can't rule us.

...fake history. Just look at the sponsors; they're freaks.

nt

Constitutional restoration = repeal
Welfare reform = repeal
Fairness = unfairness
etc.

Searched on google news for it and hit an article that seems to have gopusa ties. It has many of the talking points that have come up recently in relation to the Schiavo situation and it clearly shows the direction this fight is taking, one to gain control of the judicial branch.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2005/03/28/Politics/What-Congress.Gives.Congress.Can.Take.Away-904267.shtml


As a matter of law, Congress could convene today and abolish the entire federal judiciary, with the exception of the Supreme Court. It could also create a federal court to hear nothing but Terri Schiavo cases within the bounds of federal legal jurisdiction as enumerated in Article III, Section 2. The Congress has already created specific federal courts on tax law, national security and even maritime issues, so it has been done before.


In the past couple of years, we have seen examples of judicial tyranny in landmark cases about the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and gay marriage, to name but a few. Judicial activism and judicial tyranny has expanded exponentially only because "we the people" and our elected Congressional representatives have allowed it to happen.


Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) and Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) have introduced bills, S-520 in the Senate and HR 1070 in the House entitled the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005" that would limit the power of the federal judiciary specifically in religious liberty cases. These bills were also introduced in 2004, but languished in committee and were reintroduced at the beginning of this current congressional session.

At the end of the article:
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Yeah, right.

Maybe it's time to start a thread gathering this and similar legislation that attempts to limit the judiciary and/or the people's access to it so we can see the extent of this.
Some that come to mind are HR 418 (especially section 102) which has been passed by the House and is in the Senate and the recent legislation on class action lawsuits.

tack it to the top of the board and leave it there through the bound to be nasty fight over judgeships. The removal of the filibuster (the nuclear option) is related as well.

I suggest we call it: Republican Attack on Independent Judiciary.

:kick:

nt

The bill as cited above seems so far-fetched, even for this ERW Congress, I had to check for myself. There is a "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005" (see below), the particulars of -- strangely -- no one seems to have heard anything about.

As is apparent, some of the Republican members of the Senate have indeed decided to, in effect, legislate the end of one of the co-equal branches of Government, end the separation of church and state, and change the U.S. Constitution so that signed and ratified foreign treaties no longer have force as domestic law.

Here's the link to S. 520 as found at Thomas.gov :
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c1092sqOSK::

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

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill 1 of 50
GPO's PDF Display Congressional Record References Bill Summary & Status Printer Friendly Display - 4,425 bytes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)

S 520 IS


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S . 520
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 3, 2005
Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 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 2005'.

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) 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 entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

(b) 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.'.

SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.

(a) 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 courts 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.'.

(b) 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.'.

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 English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.

TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.

Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to, on, 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.



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

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The 14th amendment.

An act of congress cannot remove the 14th's extension of the bill of rights to all citizens of the US no matter what state they reside in. If state law violates your constitutional rights, it is, by the 14th, a matter for the federal courts to act on.

the Constitution. How do they get away with even proposing legislation such as this?

Congress can remove any matter from the jurisdiction of district and appeals courts at any time.

That would leave the Supreme Court as the only federal court to hear any of the 14th amendment cases arising from extablishment of religion by a state or local government.

Just saying.

and if anyone wants evidence that far right wingers are out of control, here it is.

:scared:

WTF?????? People need to know about this. Keep this kicked. I nominated it.

Thanks

and to revisit the Constitutional writings* of Senator, Secretary of State, and Attorney General Judah Philip Benjamin.

<>

SAVE YOUR SUTTERS CREEK CALIFORNIA GOLD COINS -- THE GOLDEN BEAR REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA WILL RISE AGAIN.

<>

Footnote--
Judah Philip Benjamin's works on Commercial Law are well known--

1. Benjamin's Sale of Goods (Common Law Library) by A.G. Guest, Judah Philip Benjamin
2. A treatise on the law of personal property;: With references to the American decisions and to the French code and civil law by Judah Phillip Benjamin
3. A treatise on the law of sale of personal property,: With reference to the French code and civil law, by Judah Phillip Benjamin

this is outrageous

How many amendments does this violate? In God we Trust, but who is God's mouth piece? So Deity would be a new branch of American Government? If this is passed who would interpret Constitutionality when it goes against God's sovereignty? I guess we would know who would enforce it. Sounds like we are cashing in one King George for another King George.

The United States as a Republic was a good experiment but it appears we are going the way of other notable Republics. Maybe we should forgive the Taliban they could give us some pointers on how this works.

Sen. Shelby,

Having read the summary of the “Constitution Restoration Act of 2005” (S.520), I am deeply troubled by your sponsorship of this bill.

By prohibiting “courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government,” your bill not only places legislative barriers between the citizen and his or her First Amendment right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” but also (by proscribing the types of matters on which courts are permitted to rule and the precedents and case-law upon which they may draw) represents a gross violation of the separation of powers envisioned by the Constitution’s framers.

Our Constitution established courts as the primary venue for the citizen to exercise his or her right to petition because our laws are not “one-size-fits-all.” We should be careful of any legislative incursion into matters that rightly remain within the discretion of judicial bodies that are in a unique position to hear the facts of citizen grievances on a case-by-case basis and render their decisions accordingly (particularly when those grievances are against the government itself).

It is my hope that you will reconsider your position on this matter.

Sincerely,

stuckinlucky
A Native Alabamian

nt

With my blessing.

They don't read e-mails, but I guess you have to try something, anything. Keep it up, they can't ignore us forever.

I plan to send it snail mail as well. Of course, it won't make him withdraw the bill, but at least my voice is out there. Having watched Shelby evolve over the years, I'm actually not convinced that he is a "true believer." But coming from Alabama, he has to pander to the religious nutjobs to an extent. I think this is one of those instances.

It's far worse than any legislation on any given issue. It overthrows our Constitution.

I don't see how in hell they can get away with it. If they do pass it, even Scalia will find it unconstitutional.

These bastards have to be stopped. :mad:

I am sick of this attack on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did a great job in restoring honesty and dignity in America. The only reason why Judges don't normally side with Republicans is because most of laws and ideas of republicans are unconstitutional.

I'd rather trust a judge to interpret the Constitution than these lawmakers. It was lawmakers that make blacks count 1/3 of a person. It was lawmakers that made interracial dating and marriage illegal in most states. It was the lawmakers that made oral sex a crime. It was lawmakers that made segregation legal. All ruled unconstitutional by judges.

It the judges job is to interpret the Constitution. This bill is so unconstitutional, that I don't see how it will leave the Senate.

I wouldn't exactly say they don't normally side with Republicans, but they're not COMPLETE morons (well, maybe Scalia).

wouldn't Al Gore be president today.

If I read it right, this would limit the Feds ability to step in and overrule State and Local courts.

If the NeoCons are successful in packing the Supreme Court with pro-fascist police state judges, wouldn't this legislation lend some protection to those of us who live in Blue States and Cities? Wouldn't we still have some control over the local governments and more authority to tell the Rebublicans and Talibornagains to butt the fuck out!

"...over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

It takes away the federal court's ability to hear RELIGIOUS cases...not all state issues. Don't get me wrong, it's still horrifying, but it wouldn't have affected Bush v. Gore.

"acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

This is an attack on our Constitution and fundamental system of government by the Talibornagains!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.520:

Edit for additional information:
There are 5 versions of Bill Number S.520 for the 108th Congress
1 . Fremont-Madison Conveyance Act (Introduced in Senate)
2 . Fremont-Madison Conveyance Act (Reported in Senate)
3 . Fremont-Madison Conveyance Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)
4 . Fremont-Madison Conveyance Act (Referred to House Committee after being Received from Senate)
5 . Fremont-Madison Conveyance Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

Bt definition, Congress can pass laws but the judiciary has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of those laws. There CANNOT be laws that prohibit judicial review.

These Republican assholes are just trying to establish Congress as the domonant branch when they are supposed to be equal.

This section intrigues me:

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 up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.

Does this mean that all Federal narcotics laws would be thrown out? (don't think the English gave a flip about what you smoked in those old common law days, plus the oft-cited hemp-growing habits of our founding fathers...):hippie:

Don't get me wrong, the bill is an unabashed move further toward fascism, and I am ashamed that one of my state's senators (Burr -grrrr!) has anything to do with this nonsense.

But if the fools pass it, they deserve the massive hemp rallies that could follow...

-app :smoke:

pass the joint, man :D

Scary,very,very scary!

We've had our heads in the sand for too long on crap like this; we need to kick this and expose it for what it is: un-American, plain and simple. And if this kind of thing actually goes through, then I'm not sure I want to be a part of that America.

Guess I'll look into those fantasy travel plans to Canada again.

for sale. I have a good friend who works in a high level position for one of the local real estate companies here. Near the election, it was made widely known around the company that Burr was the man to choose when voting for our senator since the company had already worked out a "deal" with him. Real estate can be a dirty business with all the regulations these guys have to adhere to, and having a congressman in your pocket will definitely move things along. It's all about the $$$ if you're Republican. Now it seems Burr is doing his Republican duty as a new senator (replacing John Edwards) by trying to pass more bullshit Republican laws. Sickening.

AND PASSED IT AROUND TO ACTIVITS

I told my friends what would happen if they voted Republican, but noooo, they wouldn't listen. Dear God, I'm not gonna stand it if we inch any closer to tyranny.

:hi:

The People for the American Way and theocracywatch.org have been warning us about this for a long time. This has been on the slate for quite awhile.

By the way, I believe Scalia is FOR this legislation. So a court of 9 Scalias would pass it.

The idea has been toyed with on a limited basis, for instance the Pledge of Allegiance case, and the DOMA.

This bill, however, goes beyond anything considered before. It would strip ALL jurisdiction from ALL federal courts in ALL cases where violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause is alleged.

For example, the legislature passes a law that all state employees and school children have to spend thirty minutes a day in prayer and Bible study. Or, all abortion is outlawed because it is against the legislature's interpretation of Biblical law. Or, slavery is reinstituted because, hey, it was okay in the Bible!

Our only recourse would be to the Christian Coalition-packed State Supreme Court.

Every state could have a different interpretation of these issues, too.

Many think the Repugs are just grandstanding when they introduce this stuff. Think again. They are dead serious. They intend to make the Bible (and their interpretation of it) the Supreme Law of the Land.

Check out this Republican position paper telling how great they think jurisdiction stripping would be.

http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept2804CourtStrippingSD.pdf

S521 - A new bill that makes it unconstitutional for the court to rule that a law is unconstitutional. They should have passed this first but they're still trying to figure out how to spell unconstitutional.

this bill would also be subjected to judicial review. Scalia may like it, but the other judges (those with somewhat of a liberal sway every now and then) will throw it out.

Let them waste their time and our money, and we'll see where it gets them.

Q3JR4

look, Congress has the authority to COMPLETELY dissolve the federal court system other than the supreme court if they want, seems to me they therefore have the right to remove jurisdiction from federal district and appellate courts if they want to as well.

Certainly, they are much much more limited in how they limit the jurisdiction of the supreme court to hear cases, but the bottom line is, they can limit the types of cases that lesser federal courts can hear.

:kick:

Someone who shall remain nameless told me yesterday, in this very forum, that I was basically dumb for thinking they might try something like this.

The Judiciary Act is the target, folks. They'll abolish it all save SCOTUS if they can, push through rules that make the fillibuster a thing of the past, put people on the only Court of any meaning that will interpret the Consitution the way they want, and then it is truly all over.

because--among other things--by allowing this thread to sink out of sight, we're doing our bit to enable these crackpots.

And raise you a kick.

:kick: :kick:

it can't be good

and tell him/her that you want them to vote NO on this bill!!!

you will need your nine digit zip code to use the following site which you can find at:

www.usps.com

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Constitution only created the Supreme Court...the District Courts and Appellate Courts are creations of Congress and thus that branch's bitch.

Not a good idea though in my opinion - clearly a power grab by one branch.

What a tool. I miss Edwards already.

Constitution Restoration Act = Constitution Destruction Act