The "Constitution Restoration Act"

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm no expert on US politics, but this looks fairly worrying.

Is this part of a general trend for the US legislative branch to try to pass laws stopping judicial review of their other laws? If so, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a judicial arm of government to act as a check in the first place?

 

[Ladewig]

What a bizarre bill (s520):

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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.'.


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.

What is the purpose of using English constitutional and common law before 1787 ?

Also, doesn't the wording of this paragraph mean that the courts cannot use the U.S. Constitution when interpreting the U.S. Constitution? I.e. shouldn't it say "In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any [other] constitution, law, administrative rule..."

 

[hgc]

Theocracy on the march.

 

[Garrette]

Egregious.

I suggest that the first action to take if it actually passes is to challenge it and have it reviewed by the courts and ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Suddenly]

What a bizarre bill (s520):



What is the purpose of using English constitutional and common law before 1787 ?

Our common law comes from England, and we adopted their common law, and English decisions were given great weight. These days, the U.S. now has enough of a body of law so that there is a much lesser need to go back to pre-independence courts.

Also, doesn't the wording of this paragraph mean that the courts cannot use the U.S. Constitution when interpreting the U.S. Constitution? I.e. shouldn't it say "In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any [other] constitution, law, administrative rule..."

No... First, "constitution" is not capitialized, and that is one indication they do not mean the US Constitution. Also, it becomes somewhat clear later in the sentence:

"...may not rely upon any constitution ... or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency...."

The second part is pretty meaningless. Absent an on point decision from a higher court in the same jurisdiction all authority is persuasive.

When an American judge mentions a foriegn policy when making a decision, they aren't saying "We do this because France does it and they are really cool so it must be a good idea. Being activist liberals we worship France and think we should be more like them."

More accurate is that they say "Other countries have tried this policy, and it looks like a good idea consistent with our laws so we will adopt it."

All foreign authority is persuasive only. Judges look around the world to find evidence and ideas to solve legal problems. Now, if someone in France comes up with an idea that makes a lot of sense, and a judge agrees with it, what then? He has to rule otherwise becuase France thought of it first?

The judge will rule the same way and just won't mention the French rule.

The whole second part is just playing to the rubes...

 

[Tony]

All the courts have to do is rule this unconstitutional. For something like this to become law the constitution itself would have to be amended. Any guesses why these idiots aren't going that route?

 

[hammegk]

Egregious.

To you, anyway.

I suggest that the first action to take if it actually passes is to challenge it and have it reviewed by the courts and ruled unconstitutional.

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

Andrew Jackson led the way.

I suggest this scenario is rapidly approaching, again.

 

[crimresearch]

All the courts have to do is rule this unconstitutional. For something like this to become law the constitution itself would have to be amended. Any guesses why these idiots aren't going that route?

Because there are 2 ways to amend the Constitution?

 

[Tony]

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

By all means, please do. Such a blatantly fascist act would reveal the true nature of the republican party and the conservative "movement" and solidfy their defeat in the polls.

Andrew Jackson led the way.

I suggest this scenario is rapidly approaching, again.

It's telling that you invoke an act of quasi-genocide as a model for the implementation of your beliefs. You must be a christian.

 

[shanek]

What is the purpose of using English constitutional and common law before 1787 ?

Because the Constitution was based on that.

Also, doesn't the wording of this paragraph mean that the courts cannot use the U.S. Constitution when interpreting the U.S. Constitution? I.e. shouldn't it say "In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any [other] constitution, law, administrative rule..."

No, because it continues, saying, "...of any foreign state or international organization or agency... "

 

[Tony]

.

 

[shanek]

My first reaction is, "'Constitution Restoration' sounds like such a wonderful idea that the law itself can't possibly be up to anything good."

Here's a link to the bill:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s520is.txt.pdf

Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill;

Not off to a good start here. Sen. Shelby never met a Constitutional violation he didn't like.

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.

I don't think this is as nefarious as it sounds; it really seems to me like an affirmation of Article VI Clause 3's prohibition of a religious test as a requirement to hold public office. The only part I disagree with is that it doesn't iinclude such an agent's denial of God, either. I'd get behind it if the words "acknowledgment of" were changed to "position on."

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the
22 Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that
23 matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.

Again, this is only insofar as they have expressed a positive position on the role of God as the source of our sovereign rights.

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.

Covered sufficiently above, I think.

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.

I don't really know what they're talking about here. Have agents been removed on the basis of expressing their own personal position on the issue of God as the source of our rights? If so, that's a violation of Article VI Clause 3, and all this is doing is supporting the finding of Marbury v. Madison that any law repugnant to the Constitution is void from the start.

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.

Again, I don't know what this is referring to, here. When has any Federal court done so?

On the face, it seems innocuous...but given that they're apparently trying to combat a problem that doesn't seem to exist, perhaps it is not unreasonable that my olfactory systems detect a rather sizeable specimen of rodentia.

 

[hammegk]

By all means, please do. Such a blatantly fascist act would reveal the true nature of the republican party and the conservative "movement" and solidfy their defeat in the polls.

LOL. What a dunce. Maybe you can stick posies in the gun barrels?

It's telling that you invoke an act of quasi-genocide as a model for the implementation of your beliefs. You must be a christian.

Nah, just a realist.


RE UR last edited post "." Smartest comment I've ever seen you make.

 

[Tony]

LOL. What a dunce.

Dunce? I guess I'd rather be that than white trash piece of **** like you.

Maybe you can stick posies in the gun barrels?

That would be hard to do while they're in my crosshairs.

Nah, just a realist.

I guess Hitler was a "realist" too. The jews really do control the world.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I like that people are willing to give so much credit to the generation of 1787, to the extent that they think nobody since then has had any good ideas.

Oh well, I'm sure women didn't really want the vote anyway.

 

[drkitten]

I don't think this is as nefarious as it sounds; it really seems to me like an affirmation of Article VI Clause 3's prohibition of a religious test as a requirement to hold public office.

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

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.

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

I don't really know what they're talking about here. Have agents been removed on the basis of expressing their own personal position on the issue of God as the source of our rights?

No, but relief has been granted on a number of instances, including requiring the removal of the Ten Commandments' monument.

Under this clause, the previous holding that the monument be removed is nullified, clearing the way for it to be replaced.

Again, I don't know what this is referring to, here. When has any Federal court done so?

It's a warning shot across the bow of any "activist judges" that might be tempted to take the case and rule against the monument when (not if) the fundicrats try to replace it. Basically, it's a statement that if you don't rule in the way the sponsors of this bill like, you will be impeached and removed from office.

On the face, it seems innocuous...but given that they're apparently trying to combat a problem that doesn't seem to exist, perhaps it is not unreasonable that my olfactory systems detect a rather sizeable specimen of rodentia.

Check out the history of Judge Roy Moore and his monument. It's a very clear example of a cunningly-disguised private relief bill.

ETA. I just checked. Shelby, the primary sponsor, is the senior senator from Alabama, Judge Moore's state. Coincidence?

 

[hammegk]

Dunce? I guess I'd rather be that than white trash piece of **** like you.


That would be hard to do while they're in my crosshairs.


I guess Hitler was a "realist" too. The jews really do control the world.

Gee, bunkie. Did I hit a nerve?

Crosshairs of what? Your RPGame control?

And my, my: antisemitism. What will the ADL say? And the SPLC?

 

[Tony]

Gee, bunkie. Did I hit a nerve?

Ignorant white trash always hits a nerve.

Crosshairs of what? Your RPGame control?

LOL

RPGame control??? See above.

You've given me another reason to go to the NRA Convention in Houston next weekend..

And my, my: antisemitism. What will the ADL say? And the SPLC?

Again see above.

 

[shanek]

I like that people are willing to give so much credit to the generation of 1787, to the extent that they think nobody since then has had any good ideas.

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

Oh well, I'm sure women didn't really want the vote anyway.

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.)

 

[hammegk]

Ignorant white trash always hits a nerve.

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

RPGame control??? See above.

You own a real gun? Please don't hurt yourself, or too many innocent bystanders.

Again see above.

See what? Your antisemitic comment?