<<http://concatenation.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_concatenation_archive.html# 107950198647410574>>
Not one, but 10 bills dealing with 'judicial activism' are introduced. This article is in Human Events, the National Conservative Weekly, so they're in favor of them, of course. However, the article does give us the summaries and the call numbers of the bills. (This article has links to the Thomas legislative site for all the bills.) I shouldn't need to point out that many of these are blinds, power grabs in disguise, as the arguments on which their 'merits' are based aren't reflected in the wording, which is vague and could be used to mean anything, none of it beneficial to anyone other than the Dominionist Republicans. Herewith, call numbers and summaries without the conservative jargon (but with commentary by me): H. Res. 446 Title: Constitutional Preservation Resolution Congressional Research Service (CRS) Summary: Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Supreme Court should base its decisions on the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and not on the law of any foreign country or international law or agreement not made under the authority of the United States. (Oh? What about treaties the US has signed and backed out of? What about historical treaties? What about case law? What about the Treaty of Tripoli, which the US signed two centuries ago and which states that we are not a Christian nation?) S. Res. 275 Title: A Resolution to Affirm the Defense of Marriage Act CRS Summary: Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) Congress should take whatever steps necessary to affirm the fact that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman; (2) same-sex marriage is not a right, fundamental or otherwise, recognized in this country; (3) neither the U.S. Constitution nor any Federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups; (4) the Defense of Marriage Act is a proper and constitutional exercise of Congress's powers under the effects clause of section 1 of Article IV; and (5) that no State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such entities, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. (Oh, please. I understand why this is being done. The Religious Right feels genuinely threatened by the concept of homosexuality, and thus feels it has to be battled in the streets and in the home. I get that, I really do. But construing the law to remove domestic partners of either sex from benefits afforded to domestic partners by state law, employers or other sources is just mean-spirited. The rationale for that from the RR is that it 'takes money unlawfully from the rich to support people who don't deserve it,' which is also the rationale against taxation and against a lot of other things. There's more here also, concerned with states not respecting each other's laws -- an effectual return of the Confederacy, perhaps to placate the Old South.) H. Res. 468 Title & Summary: Expressing disapproval of the consideration by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of foreign laws and public opinion in their decisions, urging the end of this practice immediately to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, and urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States. (Since when does the House have the right to determine how the Court arrives at its verdicts? And what about the historical inheritance of English common law? Are we to disregard that now, also? And what about the dangerous precedent of dictating to judges how they are to decide cases?) H.R. 1547 Title: Religious Freedom Restoration Act CRS Summary: Amends the Federal judicial code to deny the district courts of the United States, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear or determine any case in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue. (Here we are neck-deep with the sharks circling. This would keep any territorial court from dealing with religious-based law emanating from the Congress. What religious-based laws? How about the Old Testament-based laws that the Dominionists are interested in, such as reinstituting stoning and burning at the stake under the rationale that if they were good enough for Moses they're good enough for now? And no, I'm not out of my mind. Read the legal sections of the first five books of the Bible if you want a closer look at what people would be burned or stoned for: disobedience to parents, homosexuality, adultery, for example.) H.R. 3893 Title: We the People Act >From the bill: ". . . Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. [...] "The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court shall not adjudicate any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation . . ." (This would remove from the courts the power to declare unconstitutional any laws concerning religion -- hence any 'faith-based' laws, any Biblical judgment laws -- as well as eliminating the right to privacy, equal protection of the law, and civil rights. Oh, and it invalidates the separation of church and state, also.) H.R. 3799 Title: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 CRS Summary: 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. (Since when does the Constitution need restoration? What this law would do would be to enable the government to 'restore' Old Testament law, and remove the ability of the courts to declare it unconstitutional. This would remove the balance of powers between the judiciary and the legislative branch. It would remove the civil rights inherent in being able to sue the bastards who did you wrong when those bastards are government officials. It would again restrict the law that could be cited as precedent to the laws of the Religious Right, eliminate the priority of the Federal courts over state courts in terms of precedent, and provide grounds for removing justices -- who are appointed for life -- from their offices for doing their jobs. This one would make a travesty of the Constitution and everything concerned with it -- which is everything.) S. 2082 Title: Constitution Restoration Act (Related bill for H.R. 3799) Summary: According to its official title, the bill will "limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism." It has three major parts designed to accomplish this. 1. Jurisdiction: Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will not have jurisdiction to review any case in which a plaintiff is seeking relief against the government -- Federal, State, or local -- or a government officer for the "acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." 2. Interpretation: "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." 3. Enforcement: First, the bill will make any Federal court decision, which, by the enactment of this legislation, would be considered outside that court's jurisdiction, non-binding precedent for any State court. The bill also provides for the impeachment, conviction, and removal of any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who engages in activity exceeding that court's jurisdiction, as outlined by this bill. (This is even more particular in restricting what law could be used to justify decisions in court, exempting executive orders, administrative rules, and the Constitution itself. This is prima facie unconstitutional. It also exempts from judicial authority any government official whose excuse for his actions is "God told me to do it.") H.R. 3920 Title: Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004 >From the bill: ". . . The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress. (This is the one I wrote about earlier today. This removes the Judiciary's ability to review laws by giving Congress the ability to overrule them.) H.R. 3190 Title: Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties Act CRS Summary: Declares that among those powers reserved to the States and their political subdivisions are the powers to display the Ten Commandments, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and to recite the national motto on or within property owned or administered by them. Declares that: (1) the Pledge of Allegiance shall be, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all."; and (2) the national motto shall be, "In God we trust." Excepts from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court the display of the Ten Commandments and the use of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. (This eliminates the separation of church and state, and attempts to create a public civil Christian-based religion. Since when are the Pledge and the motto 'religious'?) S. 1558 Title: Religious Liberties Restoration Act Summary: This bill will reserve to the States (a) the power to display the Ten Commandments on or within State property; (b) the power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on or within State property (noting that the official Pledge will remain as it currently reads, including those two words that have been such anathema to the Left -- "under God"); and (c) the power to recite the national motto -- "In God we trust" -- on or within State property. Most importantly, this bill will keep these powers out of the jurisdiction of Federal courts other than the Supreme Court. (See above. Also, note that federal district courts would have no jurisdiction to review these matters. Customarily, when a case proceeds from court to court, it goes through the Circuit Courts of Appeals, which are federal district courts. This would hamstring the appeals process.) *** Every one of these bills is an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen for civil rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and separation of powers. By all means, contact your Congressman and Senators on these. And it wouldn't hurt to write a few letters to newspapers as well. This was NOT covered in the headlines on Google, though it should have been; I had to dig down and research to find it. The only thing that is going to keep these bills from becoming law are our Democratic Senators and Congressional representatives. If you love the Constitution, if you love your rights and freedoms, treasure your Democratic Congresspeople and elect more of them. ---- "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project." - James Madison
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
