![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I should renounce my last name to disassociate myself from the jerkus maxiumus from Alabama...
Delay, as many know, followed that up with a wonderful statement:
"We will look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."
A 'Post editorial responded to that saying,
For conservatives on the bench were no more itchy than liberals to bend to Congress's will. Having been invited to jump in and find a way to help Congress's favored party prevail, the bench declined with near unanimity. Having been invited to play games like politicians, in other words, America's judges responded like judges.Hear, hear.
And for this, the majority leader of the House of Representatives promises that "<i>the men responsible for this [will] answer for their behavior</i>." [Emphasis mine, source: DeLay again] This country has an independent judiciary precisely to shield judges who make difficult decisions under intense political and time pressure from the bullying of politicians. It is essential that the judges who stood up to Congress now receive ample support -- so that judges will feel secure in emulating them.
Yet, before THAT attack on an independent judiciary was able to even get started, the jerkasaurus who shares my name (and little else) has proposed (actually a month ago) an even more dreadful attack on the judiciary, the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005. Sounds dreadful, and given the name, an almost near-perfect guarentee to not be constitutional in the slightest. An identical bill was sent to the House the same day.
The 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 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.
In other words, the Supreme Court would not in the future be able to address the issue of the 10 Commandments monument erected in Mr. Shelby's native Alabama. The Supreme Court would not be able to hear any future case involving the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance the next time it comes up. The Supreme Court and federal courts would not be able to hear a case where Creationism was being taught in public school science classes.
And most importantly (those were just the *current* cases going on), the Supreme Court would not be able to overrule any future law passed by this current Congress and President as a violation of Church and State Separation.
In fact, Judge Moore (the dethroned 10 Commandments jackass) has said, "This bill would cover all present bills before Congress regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments, National Motto “In God We Trust,” and all other acknowledgments of God."
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.
ok, this one is kinda ok, in that the scope and limitations of what should be considered Law as acknowledged by Americans for Americans in America. I shouldn't expect an American judge to look at Canadian law to determine if an American law is unconstitutional. According to a pro-right blog, Ginsberg and O'Connor have done this at some point recently, though the reference for that did not name case IDs to support this claim, much less indicate if those cases were strictly with Americans or involving the foriegn states who's laws were consulted.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
so that individual states can now act as if 200 years of legal precident on the separation clause *never happened*???
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.
oh? and where is the personal accountability for congressmen who blatently propose unconstitutional laws?
This is the second time this has been proposed. The first, in 2004, was accompanied by a Q&A from Judge Moore, http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1644862 .
the very first paragraph has 2 gross misinterpretations in it already
The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the “organic law” of our Country by United States Code Annotated. The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government.
1) The DoI is a wonderful document, but it is not the law of the land. The Constitution does not grant any official legal status to any statement within the DoI which effectively only defines the scope of the relationship between America and Great Britain.
2) All state constitutions mention God (or some entity that maps to God; Hawaii is pretty unique in that one) in their preambles, which are not in any way legally binding. The vast majority state that God is acknowledged as the source for the blessings of libery and freedom, but in NO way is acknowledged as the authority for law or government.
Government is by the will of the people to be governed. Not one state constitution has ever suggested otherwise that God is the authority for this, only that God is the source of the Freedom the Constitutions protect.
no subject
no subject
Been watching as the extreme right has been using this administrations clear intents to look the other way as our constitution is trod upon for some time now.
The frightening thing to me is how *quickly* they've managed what they've done.
Christian does not necessarily mean conservative, right wing, and/or Republican. The rest of us (as in, all the rest of those of us who call themselves Christian but don't agree with this, and anyone else who is against this raping of our most sacrosanct document) need to get out there and be heard.
Enough is enough...
Oh...and Delay can kiss my pale Irish butt if he thinks he is above the frigging constitution...arrogant ass.
no subject
Doc
no subject
Something else I've noticed is that Republicans (who are, in the main, conservative) are supposed to be the ones who want to leave power at the State level. Yet, to look at things now, not only do the current Republicans in power not want to leave the States alone, they don't want to leave the judiciary alone either. They're also supposedly the ones who are against "big government" (as in, spending and intercession into the daily workings of the common man), but this Administration is breaking all those boundaries as well.
Aren't the *conservatives* noticing any of these changes to this (supposedly) Republican administration? Or, is it OK so long as it's their agendas for which the rules are being bent?