The "Constitution Restoration Act"

[shanek]

You're not reading closely enough. This specifically applies to agents and entities, not just people.

Well, people are agents. Entities I'm not sure; you might have a point there.

I think it's been specifically drafted to cover the recent Ten Commandments' monuments cases, where people asked for "relief" in the form of having the monuments removed, when the state agency, acting in its official, corporate capacity, was "acknowledging ... God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

I see. My thing is, with the Alabama situation, it was paid for with taxpayer money and displayed in a room that belonged to the taxpayers. It's a different thing, IMO, with the judge who had it stitched to his robe, as my understanding is it's his personal robe and he personally paid for the stitching. The latter should be allowed; the former shouldn't.

Basically, it's a licence for any state or federal agency, agent, or entity to establish Christianity (in flagrant violation of the Bill of Rights) and a violation of separation of powers in denying the possibility of judicial review of such establishment.

If that's the case, then the law itself is unconstitutional and the judicial can strike it down. As I've said, the guys who are putting it forward aren't exactly known for their dedication to the Constitution.

The idea is that the courts wouldn't even have jurisdiction to hear the case asking for the monument to be relieved.

Well, the courts would certainly be able to hear the case under Article III. So again, if that's the case, it would just make the law unconstitutional anyway. Which, again, isn't surprising.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is scary that this "Act" was remitted at all. WTF?! The christian coalition is simply saying, screw everyone else, WE need to rule the USA with good christian morals. This act, coupled with this: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050404/pl_nm/media_decency_congress_dc
is the start of a new theocracy. Soon, we will only be able to name our kids with "good christian names", we'll all have to go to church and homosexuals will have to go to therapy for treatment of their homosexuality.

 

[Garrette]

Egregious.

hammegk

To you, anyway.

Obviously. That’s why I said it.

Originally posted by hammegk:

And if Federal Executive and Legislative decide to ignore that ruling, how will Judicial respond effectively? And at State level?

How would it respond if the executive and legislative branches ignored any ruling?

This one is no more special than Roe v. Wade or Miranda or Marbury v. Madison.

The judicial branch has no power to enforce.

Originally posted by hammegk:

Andrew Jackson led the way.

Interesting (and irrelevant but telling) that you post a historical incident involving the threatened use of a new state convention as analogous to judicial review by SCOTUS.

Originally posted by hammegk:

I suggest this scenario is rapidly approaching, again.

Not if you mean a state convention.

If you mean threatened secession, then I suppose it’s possible, but I have more trust in my country than that.

 

[Tony]

You seem fixated. How do you feel about black trash, brown trash, yellow trash, etc?

The same way I feel about white trash. Ignorance is still ignorance regardless of what race it manifests. It's racist to excuse the ignorance of one race but condemn it in others.

See what? Your antisemitic comment?

Please keep talking, you're making my argument for me.

 

[jj]

I told you so. I pointed out this behavior of the Bush administration before, and the anti-middle-ground bigots among you vilified for me.

This act, by itself, fully vindicates all that I said about the fascist intent of the Bush administration.

 

[hammegk]

... It's racist to excuse the ignorance of one race but condemn it in others.

And we wouldn't want you to come across as a caucasian hater, would we?

Please keep talking, you're making my argument for me.

Your antisemitism, you mean? How about arabs in general? What do they teach at TSU?

 

[thaiboxerken]

This Act is only a fabrication of the "hate Bush" campaign. Only liberals will believe this to be a real story.

(Did I do a good impression of neo-con?)

 

[Ladewig]

This act, by itself, fully vindicates all that I said about the fascist intent of the Bush administration.

Technically, this proposed legislation is not a product of the Bush administration, it is a product of a bunch of senators and representatives.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Technically, this proposed legislation is not a product of the Bush administration, it is a product of a bunch of senators and representatives.

Yes, and the holocaust wasn't a product of Hitler, but of a bunch of Nazi.

 

[Tony]

And we wouldn't want you to come across as a caucasian hater, would we?


Your antisemitism, you mean? How about arabs in general? What do they teach at TSU?

For the record, I'm very much pro-Semitism, my record on this forum will attest to that. My statement earlier was something intelligent people call sarcasm. At first I figured your coyness was an act, your continued insistence in this delusion has shown I was wrong.

Anyhow, I've finished dispensing with white trash, you've aptly demonstrated your ignorance for all to see and I'm getting bored with it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Nobody ever said that. That was just the starting point for the Constitution.



If you'd bother for once to learn about what you're blathering on about, you'd know that women got the right to vote under the Constitution in 1919 with the passage of the 19th Amendment.

(Oh, and there were women who, as far back as the adoption of the Constitution, were able to vote, as they paid taxes.)

I don't see how we could accept post 1787 amendments to the constitution if we're operating on the belief that 1787 and before are going to be the only acceptable source for law and governance. Would the Founding Fathers have suffragized women? They didn't, so apparently they weren't in favor, so doing so now would seem to go against the whole "let's stop at 1787" business.

If, on the other hand, post 1787 amendments can stand, regardless of the modern legal thinking behind them, even if they contradict pre 1787 interpretations of "common law" and the rest, then is the sole point to require all post 1787 thinking to have to pass the hurdle of constitutional amendment? So modernity can win out, it will just have to jump through more hoops?

Making legal changes extra difficult for the currently living seems to be against the whole spirit of a free democracy.


(Oh, and thanks for keeping it polite, rather than drag in resentment from other threads. Keep it up, and I won't send you a postcard from my next vacation.)

 

[shanek]

I don't see how we could accept post 1787 amendments to the constitution if we're operating on the belief that 1787 and before are going to be the only acceptable source for law and governance.

No one said they were. Stop making up strawmen.

What was said was that British common law up to 1787 would of necessity be included in the body of Constitutional law because the Constitution was founded on that very basis.

I really have to wonder if you've just been trolling in this forum of late.

Would the Founding Fathers have suffragized women? They didn't, so apparently they weren't in favor,

Faulty reasoning. They simply left election issues to the states. Oh, and by the way, from the New Jersey Constitution of 1776:

"IV. That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large."

In fact, originally, in every state except New York and Virginia, women could vote subject to the same restrictions as men.

If, on the other hand, post 1787 amendments can stand, regardless of the modern legal thinking behind them, even if they contradict pre 1787 interpretations of "common law" and the rest, then is the sole point to require all post 1787 thinking to have to pass the hurdle of constitutional amendment?

Again, the restriction was on foreign law, and the exception was British common law up to 1787.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I really have to wonder if you've just been trolling in this forum of late.

Sorry that I dared to disagree with you.

Faulty reasoning. They simply left election issues to the states. Oh, and by the way, from the New Jersey Constitution of 1776:

"IV. That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large."

In fact, originally, in every state except New York and Virginia, women could vote subject to the same restrictions as men.

I see. And that's why women had the vote all along, and the 1919 amendment was unnecessary?

 

[shanek]

I see. And that's why women had the vote all along, and the 1919 amendment was unnecessary?

Are you reading anything I write?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Are you reading anything I write?

Yes. Either women did or did not have the vote prior to 1787 in America. If they did, then the twentieth century amendment would have been unnecessary. If they did not, then if we adopt 1787 as our legal standard, they should not have the vote now.

You seem to want your cake and eat it, too, by saying that because women had the vote in one place, under restrictions, prior to 1787 it would be in keeping with 1787 common law practice, and therefore the foolish Act that this thread is about, to have female suffrage now. Yet the fact remains that in 1787 women did not have the vote. How is it then reconciable with 1787 common law, if it wasn't common?

 

[shanek]

Yes. Either women did or did not have the vote prior to 1787 in America.

Again, faulty reasoning. America is a union of states. Initially, the decision of who can vote was left up to the states. The states could allow them to vote if they want (most did at first), or not (two didn't at first and some of the others changed their laws as well). The 19th Amendment made the decision unilaterally that no state could deny anyone the right to vote based on sex.

How is it then reconciable with 1787 common law, if it wasn't common?

Because elections aren't common law proceedings.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't agree that the States should be allowed to decide who votes and who doesn't based on gender. I don't think the individual States should be allowed to decide who votes based on sexual preference, race, religion or creed either. Maybe I'm just weird.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This Constitutional Restoraction Act is just plain stupid. It is defeating the purpose of the ammendment process in the first place. What's the use of having an ammendment process if we're going to just reset everything and make all of the ammendments null and void?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I wonder what 1787 common law tradition would say about intellectual property rights in the internet era?

Times change, people change, the world changes. Setting up some landmark past date as a totem is an attempt to prevent further evolution, mutation, growth. We should take what's best from the past and use it in conjunction with what's best from the present, rather than clinging on to the questionable wisdom of a Golden Age.

 

[shanek]

I don't agree that the States should be allowed to decide who votes and who doesn't based on gender. I don't think the individual States should be allowed to decide who votes based on sexual preference, race, religion or creed either. Maybe I'm just weird.

Except for sexual preference, the others are guaranteed by the Constitution. No one's saying they shouldn't.