Shining light in a dark place
Mar. 4th, 2004 04:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI am sure some of you know about this, but some don't, and it scares me more than the ranting on gay marriage does, so I'm going to point to Dave Neiwert, and quote some of his stuff, as inspiration to go and look at it.
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/000278.html
The third piece -- the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 -- is the real centerpiece of the program, and is one of the most invidious pieces of legislation to come down the pike in decades.
Here's the core of the would-be law:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, 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.
In other words, the law would forbid any court to review cases involving the invocation of God in the courtroom, or the placement therein of the Ten Commandments.
But, like a set of Ginsu knives, that's not all! As this piece from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram explains:
That's sweeping enough, but it doesn't stop there. The bill would declare that federal judges interpreting the Constitution may not rely on anything besides "English constitutional and common law."
Judges, even those on the Supreme Court, could not look to other court rulings, administrative rules, executive orders -- and no foreign law, dadgummit -- though the bill says nothing about reliance on divine inspiration.
Any judge who entertains a legal claim based on a public official's "acknowledgement of God" would be committing an impeachable offense.
On the face of it it seems the Supreme Court would strike it down, out of hand, because it impinges on Judicial Review, but the implications are scary.
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/000278.html
The third piece -- the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 -- is the real centerpiece of the program, and is one of the most invidious pieces of legislation to come down the pike in decades.
Here's the core of the would-be law:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, 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.
In other words, the law would forbid any court to review cases involving the invocation of God in the courtroom, or the placement therein of the Ten Commandments.
But, like a set of Ginsu knives, that's not all! As this piece from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram explains:
That's sweeping enough, but it doesn't stop there. The bill would declare that federal judges interpreting the Constitution may not rely on anything besides "English constitutional and common law."
Judges, even those on the Supreme Court, could not look to other court rulings, administrative rules, executive orders -- and no foreign law, dadgummit -- though the bill says nothing about reliance on divine inspiration.
Any judge who entertains a legal claim based on a public official's "acknowledgement of God" would be committing an impeachable offense.
On the face of it it seems the Supreme Court would strike it down, out of hand, because it impinges on Judicial Review, but the implications are scary.
