Constitution Restoration Act of 2005

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by ScreamingEagle, May 19, 2005.

  1. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    This Act (S.520 and H.R.1070) certainly must be part of what the liberals are speaking of when they accuse the conservatives of "right wing radicalism" or an attempt to impose "theocracy".

    http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/2708/The_Constitution_Restoration_Act_of_2005
    http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/202005d.asp
    http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=619&letter_id=235039256
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Is this bill ever going to see the light of day? (please say yes!)
     
  3. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    Not if the libs have anything to say about it! They don't want God back! (especially since the ACLU has been doing such a good job getting rid of God everywhere) They think this means that the Bible (horrors!) would become the law of the land! :bs1:

    It means that judges like Ruth Bader Ginsberg would not be allowed to refer to foreign law when handing down their pronouncements! :eek: Oh, the pain those commie/socialists will have to endure with such a restriction! ;)

    It means judges like Ruth Bad-girl Ginsberg would be kicked outta her judgeship for making rulings based on foreign laws! :banana:
     
  4. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    Let me see if I can guess the Left Response:

    You terrible Religious Reich nut-jobs! How could you impose God on other people by making the Judges recognize their right to believe in Him! Plus there is nothing unconstitutional about using the laws in South Africa to interpret the US Constitution!

    No wonder We "Progressives" are shutting down the Senate with Filibusters, the nutcases are running the Asylum!
     
  5. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    Sweet!

    Of course, half that stuff is already IN the Constitution, but it's not like the actual Constitution matters, you know, when you're crusading for justice.
     
  6. deaddude
    Offline

    deaddude Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,403
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +77
    Here is my response, the Judicial Branch should not be able to crucify (pun intended) anyone for their religious beliefs. That is that no one should be denied a public office, removed from public office, or otherwise punished for their religious beliefs.

    Institutions are slightly different; an institution of the US government is not a person. No use of the institutions money should be put into any direct endorsement of any religion, nor should anybody receive unfair or deferential treatment from the institution because of their religious beliefs. An institution does not have a religion, it is inanimate. The people within that institution are not. As such the people within the institution may express their religious beliefs and should be protected by the constitution as above, but as their responsibility to the institution should not give unfair treatment to people on the basis of religion.

    Any use of government power for the endorsement of religion should be strictly under the purview of the Judicial Branch as part of Judicial Review.
     
  7. deaddude
    Offline

    deaddude Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,403
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +77
    Also the "God" in the Constitutional Restoration act thingee should probably read "Higher Power" because "God" would limit the protections afforded by this act to two religions (Judaism and Christianity) Whereas higher power would encompass almost all relgions.
     
  8. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    This law is blatantly unconstitutional. Congress has absolutely NO authority to tell the Supreme Court to do anything. The bill is a blatant violation of separation of powers, and will never see the light of day. No U.S. court has ever based a decision on "international law". They have mentioned it in decisions as food for thought, but have never used it as a factor for decision-making. This is right-wing nonsense. The rest of this is an attempt to further erode the separation of church and state, and to try and quell judges who don't kowtow to the right-wing propaganda machine.

    acludem
     
  9. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    The ACLUs plan to subvert America through the use of the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court is quite transparent but working quite well. The Republicans are having a hard time finding a way close the loophole that the ACLU so quietly sneaks though on thier way to impose thier own belief system on Americans.
     
  10. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Dude! Where have you been? Welcome back!

    And, just out of curiosity, how is a law that guarantees freedom of religious expression (part of the 1st Amendment) unconstitutional?
     

Share This Page