The Constitutional Restoration Act

[Bonnie]

(H.R. 3799/S. 2323) Now pending in congress.

Under article III of the U.S. Consitution, congress has the power, the authrotity,and the responsibility to regulate the Federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the House, it's known as H.R. 3799 Senate version is S.2323.
The Sponsors are
Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama)
Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana)
Sen. Richard Shelby (Alabama)
Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia
Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
Sen. Trent Lott (Mississppi)

Under this bill, Congress would expressly prohibit Federal courts from interfering with any expression of religious faith by local, state, or Federal officials. In other words, by law, Federal judges could not prevent:
The ten commandments from being displayed in public buildings.
Nativity scenes from appearing on courthouse lawns.
"under God" from being recited in the Pledge of Allegiance.
This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in these matters

This bill would also provide for the impeachment and removal of sitting judges if they rely on decisions from any international body or foreign court. which Sandra Day Occonor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are basing their opinions on laws enacted in foreign lands such as the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations. This is most important. Judges need to be held accountable if they break their oath to serve our Consititution!

www.conservativeusa.org

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It sounds good. I can't believe we have justices citing international and european law. That should be illegal. As OUR legislative body should be the recognized legal authority in the nation. We didn't vote for anyone in europe. This is disenfranchisement of the entire nation.

 

[Zhukov]

This bill would also provide for the impeachment and removal of sitting judges if they rely on decisions from any international body or foreign court.

Beautiful.

We didn't vote for anyone in europe.

Let alone some communist from China.

 

[theim]

I just hate how these radical measures are being passed by unelected judges. Gives me a feeling of helplessness.

 

[Bonnie]

I just hate how these radical measures are being passed by unelected judges. Gives me a feeling of helplessness.

Call up your representatives and voice your desire for this bill to pass. Im thinking it's now or never!

 

[musicman]

Too damn right, Bonnie. Strike while the iron's hot.

While we're on the subject of Supreme Court Justices who are inordinately enamored of international law, let's not forget Stephen Breyer. Addressing the WTO, he stated, "The U.S. Constitution will have to evolve in order to fit with the documents of other nations." I don't think he can make his intentions any clearer than that!

 

[Bonnie]

Too damn right, Bonnie. Strike while the iron's hot.

While we're on the subject of Supreme Court Justices who are inordinately enamored of international law, let's not forget Stephen Breyer. Addressing the WTO, he stated, "The U.S. Constitution will have to evolve in order to fit with the documents of other nations." I don't think he can make his intentions any clearer than that!

Im not given to conspiracy theories easily, but this does make one wonder why the desire, and now it seems blatant actions to water down our constitution to suit France and Germany???

 

[Zhukov]

While we're on the subject of Supreme Court Justices who are inordinately enamored of international law, let's not forget Stephen Breyer. Addressing the WTO, he stated, "The U.S. Constitution will have to evolve in order to fit with the documents of other nations." I don't think he can make his intentions any clearer than that!

.......

That is a mind boggling statement.

 

[acludem]

Well...it's been a month, I've been extremely busy with a new job and school, but I have to post on this topic.

This is, by far, quite possibly the most ridiculous, ludicrous, asinine piece of legislation proposed in a long, long time. How dare Congress interfere in the judiciary. What next? Is Congress going to pass a law that the President can't veto a bill? This is a blatant attempt by right-wing members of Congress to force the courts to impose theocracy, and yes Zell Miller is a right-winger. The fact is, we live in a society where freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our history, culture and way of life. This means that we as a society cannot and should not give precedence to one religion over another. This means that we cannot and should not post the Christian Ten Commandments outside of courthouses. This means we cannot and should not have government funded nativity scenes on public land. This means we cannot and should never have put "In God We Trust" on money or "Under God" in the pledge of allegience. This law clearly and blatantly violates the separation of powers as intended by our founders, it violates the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and violates all common sense. If you don't like what a court has done, then pass a Constitutional amendment to override the decision. It has been done before, anyone ever heard of Dred Scott? That decision was specifically overturned in the 13th Amendment to the Constitution banning slavery.

Ah...it's good to be back.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

Well...it's been a month, I've been extremely busy with a new job and school, but I have to post on this topic.

This is, by far, quite possibly the most ridiculous, ludicrous, asinine piece of legislation proposed in a long, long time. How dare Congress interfere in the judiciary. What next? Is Congress going to pass a law that the President can't veto a bill? This is a blatant attempt by right-wing members of Congress to force the courts to impose theocracy, and yes Zell Miller is a right-winger. The fact is, we live in a society where freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our history, culture and way of life. This means that we as a society cannot and should not give precedence to one religion over another. This means that we cannot and should not post the Christian Ten Commandments outside of courthouses. This means we cannot and should not have government funded nativity scenes on public land. This means we cannot and should never have put "In God We Trust" on money or "Under God" in the pledge of allegience. This law clearly and blatantly violates the separation of powers as intended by our founders, it violates the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and violates all common sense. If you don't like what a court has done, then pass a Constitutional amendment to override the decision. It has been done before, anyone ever heard of Dred Scott? That decision was specifically overturned in the 13th Amendment to the Constitution banning slavery.

Ah...it's good to be back.

acludem

Congress can pass a bill the President cant veto. Its in the Constitution.

and your right, us republicans did ban slavery. We are very proud of that.

 

[acludem]

Where? The Presidential Veto is a constutionally granted power. So is the power of the Supreme Court to review acts of congress.

The Republican Party that banned slavery is not the same Republican Party that exists today. That Republican Party is more the Democratic Party of today, and the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson is more the Republican Party today, this is especially true in the South.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

Where? The Presidential Veto is a constutionally granted power. So is the power of the Supreme Court to review acts of congress.

The Republican Party that banned slavery is not the same Republican Party that exists today. That Republican Party is more the Democratic Party of today, and the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson is more the Republican Party today, this is especially true in the South.

acludem

Article 1 Section 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law

And in case you didn't read the first post:

Article 3 Section 1

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Congress has every right to and indeed the responsibility to regulate the Judicial system. The only thing i have yet to find in the Constitution is anything that says the Supreme Court has the power to review acts of Congress. You can go ahead and look for it yourself, but its not in there.

But then you belong to the ACLU, so i would hardly expect you to know one thing about the Constitution.

And BTW the Republican party certainly is still the same party that banned slavery. Read the platform Lincoln ran on. He ran on a platform to abolish slavery and one of family values IE Sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. And today who is running on those platforms? Republicans are. we are going to abolish slavery to big government Democrats have put minorities under and we are going to fight to prevent the disintergration of the family. You can claim we aren't the same, only problem is you are wrong.

 

[Deornwulf]

Well...it's been a month, I've been extremely busy with a new job and school, but I have to post on this topic.

This is, by far, quite possibly the most ridiculous, ludicrous, asinine piece of legislation proposed in a long, long time. How dare Congress interfere in the judiciary. What next? Is Congress going to pass a law that the President can't veto a bill? This is a blatant attempt by right-wing members of Congress to force the courts to impose theocracy, and yes Zell Miller is a right-winger. The fact is, we live in a society where freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our history, culture and way of life. This means that we as a society cannot and should not give precedence to one religion over another. This means that we cannot and should not post the Christian Ten Commandments outside of courthouses. This means we cannot and should not have government funded nativity scenes on public land. This means we cannot and should never have put "In God We Trust" on money or "Under God" in the pledge of allegience. This law clearly and blatantly violates the separation of powers as intended by our founders, it violates the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and violates all common sense. If you don't like what a court has done, then pass a Constitutional amendment to override the decision. It has been done before, anyone ever heard of Dred Scott? That decision was specifically overturned in the 13th Amendment to the Constitution banning slavery.

Ah...it's good to be back.

acludem

Wrong on several counts. The Ten Commandments is a piece of Jewish History and literature, found within the Torah. Secondly, if the Founding Fathers has intended had intended for the First Amendment to be interpreted as you suggest, they would have specifically avoided all reference to the Creator in all of their documents and government dealings. The current use of the First Amendment by the ACLU and some members of the Supreme Court is a clear violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

[Bonnie]

The most important part of this legislation is holding judges accountable for defending our Constitution not Europe's. There can be no body of government that has supreme power. Congress can be voted out of office, same with the Senate, and President, judges make laws with impunity, and rarely are held to the fire, they can't be unelected at least as of now. This country was founded on a coventry contract not a legal contract meaning our laws are divinely given, not legally given. Therefore no judge has supreme power over the people!

 

[musicman]

.......

That is a mind boggling statement.

And (surprise, surprise), not a widely reported one, either.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The most important part of this legislation is holding judges accountable for defending our Constitution not Europe's. There can be no body of government that has supreme power. Congress can be voted out of office, same with the Senate, and President, judges make laws with impunity, and rarely are held to the fire, they can't be unelected at least as of now. This country was founded on a coventry contract not a legal contract meaning our laws are divinely given, not legally given. Therefore no judge has supreme power over the people!

Excellent points! We need to keep the Constitution as a barrier between our country and international law. The only international laws that we should be bound by are the treaties established through Congress.

There are checks and balances within our system on all 3 parts of government. Judges in Supreme Court positions can be kicked out by the Prez and Congress if they decide to eliminate court positions which they have done in the past. I heard in the 1800s they eliminated about half the state supreme court positions once. They can also be impeached. Judges can be held to the fire if our Congress and President will only get some backbone.

Excellent distinction between the coventry contract vs legal contract. This is what distinguishes us from the Europeans and other assorted leftist trash around the world. They believe in secular contract law which can become nothing more than a bunch of legalistic gibberish where the people of a country can be easily ignored, overridden, and have their rights taken away. The reason is that these are nothing but temporary agreements between men.

Our country stands out like a beacon in this world because we have law based upon a coventry contract with God which no man can take away and why we must avoid "international law" at all costs:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

No wonder the Left hates God so much.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Congress has every right to and indeed the responsibility to regulate the Judicial system. The only thing i have yet to find in the Constitution is anything that says the Supreme Court has the power to review acts of Congress. You can go ahead and look for it yourself, but its not in there.

If I may direct your attention to article 3, section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;- etc etc etc

While this clause does not have the exact "wording" that the Supreme Court has to power to review acts of congress, it certainly means they do, as any act of congress can lead to a case "arising under this constitution".

However, this "review" can (and does) only take place within the confines of an actual case, wherein there is an actual defendant and an actual plaintiff, with standing before the court.

And, directing your attention to Article 6 paragraph 2:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"

Which clearly states that the CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the land, and that the laws of the United States are made IN PURSUANCE of the constitution.

The Supreme Court, as the supreme judicial power, has the absolute right to judge the pursuance of constitutionality of the laws.

This has been consistently the position of the court at least since Marshall's court.

If the Supreme Court did NOT have the power, then the constitution and it's amendments would become a legal nullity.

Having said that, while the congress has the power to regulate the judiciary, their regulation is only permissible to the extent that they do not interfere with the judiciary power under the constitution (unless they make a constitutional amendment).

In other words, if a federal judge is ruling on a case, and there is a constitutional conflict between a law enacted, and the law as embodied by the constitution and it's amendments, the constitution and it's amendments take precedence. Such a Bill as noted here the restrict a judge from ruling on law as provided in the constitution could not pass the test in the SCOTUS, as such a bill would in effect attempt to nullify the legality of the constitution.






Regards,


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

This country was founded on a coventry contract not a legal contract meaning our laws are divinely given, not legally given. Therefore no judge has supreme power over the people!

???

The Constitution is a legal contract, no mention of divinity provides for the laws of the constitution.


A

 

[Huckleburry]

The great majority of our laws are derived from British common law. Moreover, in the early years of the court, the court frequently used British common law as a guide and often times was cited as precedence. In addition, this is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Conservatives are always bitching about the power of judicial review, and argue that the founders did not intend the court to have such a power. Yet publis explicitly argues for such a power in federalist 78. Moreover the power of judcial review was first established in Madison v. Marbury, where the chief justice also happend to be a framer of the Consitution. If you are pissed we have laws seperating church and state then move to Afganastan I hear they are keen on religion there.

 

[acludem]

Read the Constitution and outside of the words "In the year of our Lord" I defy you to find one single solitary reference to God in any of the text that shapes our government. It ain't there. It's not there for a very good reason. It's not there because our founders wanted a secular government, not a religious government. They wanted this to protect the state from the church and the church from the state. The right simply refusing to acknowledge that this is fact. If they had wanted a religious government they would've put it in with the rest of what they wanted in government.

As for the separation of powers and the power of checks and balances, overriding a veto is not tantamount to saying the President simply cannot veto a law. THis is exactly what Congress is trying to do to the Supreme Court. If they pass this legislation, it will be deemed unConstitutional faster than you can say Zig Zag Zell.

acludem