Constitution Restoration Act of 2004...anyone read this?

[Andy_Stephenson]

"A BILL

To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled"


http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.html

This worries me...does it bother anyone else?

The House version is H.R. 3799 and the Senate version is S. 2082. The bill limits the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts to hear cases involving “expressions of religious faith by elected or appointed officials

[ulTRAX]

1. federalism = anti-democratic

Who wants to support that?

[Chitown_Dem]

7. actually

Federalism isn't really anti-democratic ~ it simply means that the federal and state governments share powers.

Unfortunately this act isn't really about federalism, it's about allowing government officials, including judges, to inject religion into their jobs (e.g., displaying the 10 commandments on government property), and preventing the SCOTUS from doing anything about it.

"the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'."

Religion should be kept out of government, period. The Constitution already allows for people to freely acknowledge God as the sovereign source in their private lives. The Constitution also states, however, that the federal government should never, under any circumstances, recognize one form of religion over another. This seems pretty clear - and fair - to me, but I don't know why it's not good enough for the religious fundamentalists.

[BeHereNow]

10. Too late...

Keeping religion out of government, that is.
The Senate and Congress as well as all other
branches of our government run rampant with
evangelicals.
They are breeding faster than roaches as far
as infesting seats of power go.
Either fundies or corporate whores who cater to
the evangelicals, to further thier own interests,
are making all the decisions that affect us for
at least the rest of our and our childrens' childrens' lives.

BHN

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. Ah here is the rub...

"The Constitution also states, however, that the federal government should never, under any circumstances, recognize one form of religion over another."

Says nothing about the states though. States rights and all that...

[ulTRAX]

15. federalism = anti-democratic

Chitown_Dem wrote: "actually Federalism isn't really anti-democratic ~ it simply means that the federal and state governments share powers."

The federalist power sharing formula in the Constitution is nothing but a cynical voter weighing scheme. We are all supposed to pretend that states are more than the US citizens that live there. Once that illusion is established... the rest of the rationale for the Constitution comes easy. But what if we just look at US citizens regardless where they live?

The REAL question is why we, today, buy that ancient rationale... especially since it's given us George dWi aWol Bush... 50% of the Senate represents only 15% of the US population... and 4.5% of the population in the 12 smallest states can block any amendment.

If that isn't anti-democratic.... what is?

[MrSoundAndVision]

2. Well the Supreme Court is anti-democratic anyway...

being that these kings and queens are appointed for life and need not answer to the public. However, that said, I'm sure that giving Congress the ability to silence the Judicial branch combined with the Executive's ability to directly manipulate who serves in the judiciary is an effective trump of public governance.

Did I just write that? Too many martinis.

[BiggJawn]

3. Sort of handcuffs the SCOTUS, don't it?

I'll bet there will be an ammendment offered (with the blessing of Hasstert the Bastert) to allow the SCOTUS leeway in matters concerning the appointment of a pResident....

They should just call it "Roy Moore's Law" and save the fancy misleading name.

Hey, just "State's Rights", effrebotty!

[RainDog]

4. I've already contacted my representatives about this

and everyone on this list should, too, because this "act" is a stealth attempt to undermine the Constitution by domestic enemies of our separation of powers and separation of church and state who have infiltrated the highest offices of the land and are now seeking to establish a theocracy.

sounds too extreme to be true....but look at what they say.

read about them at theocracywatch.org.

read about them in Kevin Phillips' book, American Dynasty.

You ignore them at the peril of our democracy.

[Andy_Stephenson]

5. I had to pick my jaw up off the floor after

reading all this crap. My take on this is such:

You can be given a Biblical sentence without further review by the SCOTUS. This is a troubling piece of legislation.

[BeHereNow]

6. Exactly.

Add this to the Patriot Act and anyone not
considering leaving the country is simply
not paying attention.
BTW- Yurica ROCKS!
I read her daily- not because there is new
information daily, but what IS on her site
should be read and re-read by anyone who
has even the slightest glimmering of comprehension
about what is actually happening.
The REAL issues are not about gay marriage or
who our next president will be. The laws that are
being passed to crush ALL dissent and punish
anyone who is NOT an evangelical nut case are
what we should be concerned about.
I do not think it will matter who the next president
is- not in the big picture given what is going to
be possible given this type of legislation.

The situation is extremely serious and gives me reason
to seriously consider moving to New Zealand.
BHN

[Andy_Stephenson]

9. Germany or Sweden look better

all the time.

[BeHereNow]

11. I thought of Germany too but,

I have friends there who say the economy is really grim
and unless you have a business already
established there, newcomers are not doing so well.
Don't know about Sweden.
New Zealand appeals to me for several reasons
though.
BHN

[Andy_Stephenson]

13. New Zeland won't take me I am afraid.

I have no "special Skills" and I don't have the money to run there and start over.


At least in Europe I have friends I can stay with.

[BeHereNow]

16. What do you do?

Skill wise?
My friend is moving there in a month and
said it was surpisingly easy to obtain citizenship.
Granted, she has been visiting regularly for the
last three years, and says they know her by name now
and like her immensely at the port check in.
She has no special skills- did not even finish
high school.
BHN

[Andy_Stephenson]

18. I am a crack researcher

able to expose voting machine problems in a single bound.

[BeHereNow]

19. Then consider this!

New Zealand is looking to expand its arts culture-
they are looking for teachers and people to export their
arts. Seems to me that researchers would be welcomed
in that effort.
According to my friend, you'd be surprised at what the
New Zealanders value in potential citizens.
Quite the opposite of what you might think.
I'd say it is worth looking into!
BHN

[Andy_Stephenson]

21. Perhaps you are right.

But...Now that I am running for office. I have to stay and fight. It is the right thing to do.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

8. This is UN-AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's so Un-American, it's Republican!

:puke:
:puke:

God help us all if this damn thing passes, which it shouldn't.

[BeHereNow]

14. Ah, but what about the fact...

that our "representatives" have repeatedly failed
to represent US?
In case you have not figured it out yet, the
evangelicals and corporate masters ARE our representatives
and frankly, we are screwed.
It will pass. Trust me.
BHN

[OneBlueSky]

17. unconstitutional on its face . . . never pass . . .

but it's troubling as hell that Members of Congress would actually be stupid and venal enough to introduce this piece of trash . . . who elected these people anyhow? . . .

[BeHereNow]

20. The X-tian Fundie voting block.

That's who elected them.
They are extremely organized and effective.
While the rest of America saqt on their asses
and did not vote, the fundies hit the voting boxes
hard- so hard that they now own the voting machines.
I repeat- we are screwed.
It is no longer about "how do we defeat them"
it is far too late for that.
It is now about, "how do we survive them?'
BHN

[Andy_Stephenson]

22. Onward X-tian Soldiers

Fall in line or die...I guess.

[Eric J in MN]

23. Even if it passes, they can't tell the Supreme Court what to do without

Even if it passes, they can't tell the Supreme Court what to do without a Constiutional amendement.

[Andy_Stephenson]

24. Important...needs kicking

:kick:

[jerseygirl]

25. The right-wingnuts call it "judicial activism"

It sounds like that's what this is aiming to prevent. There's a state rep in my area - super conservative moron - who's really big on judicial activism. And he's an attorney, which makes no sense. A Really smart lawyer I know once said that the courts act when the legislature fails to act, which I compeltely agree with.

But back to this bill, it's really something to keep an eye on. It could seriously hamper the courts' ability to do its job.