Constitution Restoration Act of 2005

[ScreamingEagle]

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".

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Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00520:@@@L&summ2=m&

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

 

[5stringJeff]

Is this bill ever going to see the light of day? (please say yes!)

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Is this bill ever going to see the light of day? (please say yes!)

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!

It means that judges like Ruth Bader Ginsberg would not be allowed to refer to foreign law when handing down their pronouncements! 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!

 

[no1tovote4]

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!

 

[William Joyce]

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.

 

[deaddude]

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.

 

[deaddude]

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.

 

[acludem]

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

 

[dilloduck]

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

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.

 

[5stringJeff]

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

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?

 

[acludem]

I have been extremely busy with work and school, now I have changed jobs and am out of school for the summer and so have a bit more free time. It is good to finally be back.

As for this bill, it's a thinly veiled attempt to subvert the power of the courts, the religion part has nothing to do with the actual intent of the bill: to force courts to rule based on public opinion instead of ruling based on the rule of law.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have been extremely busy with work and school, now I have changed jobs and am out of school for the summer and so have a bit more free time. It is good to finally be back.

As for this bill, it's a thinly veiled attempt to subvert the power of the courts, the religion part has nothing to do with the actual intent of the bill: to force courts to rule based on public opinion instead of ruling based on the rule of law.

acludem

The true subversion of law comes from lefty judges who hallucinate things in the constituion they wish were there.

 

[5stringJeff]

I have been extremely busy with work and school, now I have changed jobs and am out of school for the summer and so have a bit more free time. It is good to finally be back.

As for this bill, it's a thinly veiled attempt to subvert the power of the courts, the religion part has nothing to do with the actual intent of the bill: to force courts to rule based on public opinion instead of ruling based on the rule of law.

acludem

I fail to see how Congress regulating the lower courts is subversion. Congress is given the power to regulate the courts in Article III of the constitution. I agree that Congress trying to regulate the SCOTUS might be over the line, but otherwise, Congress is fully within its Constitutional rights to pass such a law.

 

[acludem]

Congress was given the power to create lower courts, not to regulate them. The judiciary was always intended to be independent of the other two branches.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Congress was given the power to create lower courts, not to regulate them. The judiciary was always intended to be independent of the other two branches.

acludem

create and disband. It was never intended that the judiciary become a defacto reign of tyrants. Who would have imagined judges would have outright hallucinations regarding the constitution. For instance, show me where the constitution guarantees the right to an abortion, or the separation of church and state. You can't.

 

[5stringJeff]

Congress was given the power to create lower courts, not to regulate them. The judiciary was always intended to be independent of the other two branches.

acludem

Incorrect. Let me quote from Article III, Section II: "In all the other Cases before mentioned[i.e. all except cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." It's very clear that Congress was both empowered and expected to regulate the lower courts. And as a matter of establishment, Congress determines the jurisdiction and limitations on a court. Regulation is inherent in establishment.

 

[acludem]

I don't dispute that Congress was to set up the courts and determine what their jurisdiction was to be, but the judiciary is and was always to remain independent. SCOTUS was set up to be the one branch of government free from influence by public opinion - that is to be the voice of reason when chaos ensues. For example, it took a SCOTUS decision to finally bring an end to segregated schools. At that time, Congress couldn't even get a vote on a civil rights bill because Southerner Senators and Representatives overwhelmingly opposed it. SCOTUS did not have to worry about public opinion. It was able to rule on the issue without fear of being repudiated by the electorate as an elected politician has to fear.

This bill is a specific attempt by Congress to force federal judges and ultimately the SCOTUS to cater to the every whim of public opinion, rather than to rule based upon the law. This bill sets up a system whereby a judge has to fear impeachment every time he/she makes a decision that the majority in Congress doesn't like.

acludem

 

[5stringJeff]

I don't dispute that Congress was to set up the courts and determine what their jurisdiction was to be, but the judiciary is and was always to remain independent. SCOTUS was set up to be the one branch of government free from influence by public opinion - that is to be the voice of reason when chaos ensues. For example, it took a SCOTUS decision to finally bring an end to segregated schools. At that time, Congress couldn't even get a vote on a civil rights bill because Southerner Senators and Representatives overwhelmingly opposed it. SCOTUS did not have to worry about public opinion. It was able to rule on the issue without fear of being repudiated by the electorate as an elected politician has to fear.

The reason that judges do not have to "fear" public opinions when ruling is that they are appointed for life; they don't run for office. That will not change.

This bill is a specific attempt by Congress to force federal judges and ultimately the SCOTUS to cater to the every whim of public opinion, rather than to rule based upon the law. This bill sets up a system whereby a judge has to fear impeachment every time he/she makes a decision that the majority in Congress doesn't like.

acludem

A judge wouldn't be impeached unless they broke the law; all this does is make it illegal for judges to consider international law when making judgments, which is frankly a great idea. If a judge breaks the law today, he/she is liable to be impeached. All this does is add another common-sense offense to the books.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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

A bill by right wing-nuts to ensure their one party rule.