NationStates Jolt Archive

With the radical right now controlling both houses of Congress, the White House and the highest court in the land within a year or 2, the religious fanatics will now be pushing their agenda on all people - to remove all traces of non-christianity and to push their beliefs on all people without repercussion. A dozen states have already passed laws banning homosexuality and half a dozen have laws that prevent people from donig their job AND preventing others from doing their job because of religious beliefs (the pharmacist bullshit). Roe v Wade will be overturned within 3 years, mark my words. And while they are at it expect to be seeing more stuff like that

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3799:


Click here: Bill Summary & Status

H.R.3799
Title: To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Sponsor: Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] (introduced 2/11/2004)

Cosponsors (37)

Related Bills: S.2082

Latest Major Action: 9/13/2004 House committee/subcommittee actions.

Status: Subcommittee Hearings Held.


SUMMARY AS OF:
2/11/2004--Introduced.



Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 - 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 element of Federal, State, or local government or officer of such government by reason of that element´s or officer´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 the constitutional law and English common law.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.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






COSPONSORS(37), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 2/24/2004
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 5/5/2004
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 6/2/2004
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 4/27/2004
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 7/13/2004
Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 10/7/2004
Rep Collins, Mac [GA-8] - 5/18/2004
Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. [AL-5] - 2/24/2004
Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 3/10/2004
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-10] - 3/18/2004
Rep DeMint, Jim [SC-4] - 4/1/2004
Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2] - 2/24/2004
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 7/13/2004
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 4/27/2004
Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-5] - 9/23/2004
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 6/18/2004
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 4/27/2004
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 6/25/2004
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 2/24/2004
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 4/27/2004
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 4/27/2004
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 9/23/2004
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 3/10/2004
Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 7/19/2004
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 3/18/2004
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 2/11/2004
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 7/15/2004
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 2/24/2004
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 2/24/2004
Rep Ryun, Jim [KS-2] - 3/11/2004
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 3/25/2004
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 5/18/2004
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 6/15/2004
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 5/5/2004
Rep Vitter, David [LA-1] - 6/15/2004
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/10/2004
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 9/9/2004


there is no question of if, so when this passes, no one will be able to be held accountable for inserting christianity into the government or anywhere else, not only that, but it will allow states to do what Clarence Thomas and George Bush have wet dreams about - declare an official state religion since this bill will no longer cause anything overturned at the federal level enforceable upon the states. dual federalism died a long time ago, and i think it deserves to stay dead. we are already on the 21st century crusade under a president who believes himself to be in the white house because of a mandate, and i doubt he thinks that mandate is from the people who voted him in.


it will be a cold day in hell before the united states will again be at the forefront of any important aspect of society.

With the radical right now controlling both houses of Congress, the White House and the highest court in the land within a year or 2, the religious fanatics will now be pushing their agenda on all people - to remove all traces of non-christianity and to push their beliefs on all people without repercussion. A dozen states have already passed laws banning homosexuality and half a dozen have laws that prevent people from donig their job AND preventing others from doing their job because of religious beliefs (the pharmacist bullshit). Roe v Wade will be overturned within 3 years, mark my words. And while they are at it expect to be seeing more stuff like that



there is no question of if, so when this passes, no one will be able to be held accountable for inserting christianity into the government or anywhere else, not only that, but it will allow states to do what Clarence Thomas and George Bush have wet dreams about - declare an official state religion since this bill will no longer cause anything overturned at the federal level enforceable upon the states. dual federalism died a long time ago, and i think it deserves to stay dead. we are already on the 21st century crusade under a president who believes himself to be in the white house because of a mandate, and i doubt he thinks that mandate is from the people who voted him in.


it will be a cold day in hell before the united states will again be at the forefront of any important aspect of society.


and will this get passed? no.
and if it does get passed will it last 3 minutes in the courts? no

and will this get passed? no.
and if it does get passed will it last 3 minutes in the courts? no
1) will this get passed? - yes. republicans control both houses of congress. democrats cant filibuster forever
2) will it stand up in courts? depends on when its passed. if its passed by 2006, yeah it will, they will take it to the supreme court who will rule it legal once filled with radical right wingers of the likes of clarence thomas. rehnquist wont last long and theres a definate hardcore right winger coming in soon

This is slightly off topic, but please, use your terms correctly. "Radical" refers to the extreme left. The word you're looking for is "reactionary." The only term I am aware of that actually describes extreme positions on both sides of the spectrum is "extremist."

I would not have posted, since this bears no relevance to the topic, but it is quickly becoming a pet peeve of mine; not even the government seems to use this term correctly (well, I suppose a case could be made for George W Bush calling just about anyone "radical" given his position on the far right, but I mean objectively).

This is slightly off topic, but please, use your terms correctly. "Radical" refers to the extreme left. The word you're looking for is "reactionary." The only term I am aware of that actually describes extreme positions on both sides of the spectrum is "extremist."

I would not have posted, since this bears no relevance to the topic, but it is quickly becoming a pet peeve of mine; not even the government seems to use this term correctly (well, I suppose a case could be made for George W Bush calling just about anyone "radical" given his position on the far right, but I mean objectively).
no, i mean RADICAL. thanks for trying though

the current right wingers are more radical than reactionary, they are not just opposing progress and liberalism, they are trying to radically change the government and reshape it to their liking

look up definitions

I have looked up my definitions. "Reactionary" also refers to one who works (violently, often) for extreme change. It is the nature of the change desired that denotes whether a person is to be called "reactionary" or "radical." If the change is given a progressive or liberal bent, the individual is a "radical." If the change is an attempt to return to a real or imagined "good old days" ideal, the individual is a "reactionary."

I have looked up my definitions. "Reactionary" also refers to one who works (violently, often) for extreme change. It is the nature of the change desired that denotes whether a person is to be called "reactionary" or "radical." If the change is given a progressive or liberal bent, the individual is a "radical." If the change is an attempt to return to a real or imagined "good old days" ideal, the individual is a "reactionary."
the definition of radical ALSO alludes to the ultra conservatives, now please get the hell bakc on topic and stop whining about symantics

Actually unfortunately for Republicans, Democrats can filibuster forever. We have a system of checks and balances. No extremist judges will be appointed supreme court justices. Oh and those 11 states didnt ban homosexuality, they defined marriage as between a man and woman.

Also these are elected officials. Those 11 states define marriage that way because it was VOTED ON. If you are unhappy with our democratic system then maybe you should start a country with a dictator that only supports your ideas :rolleyes: .

Look, Democrats lost this election big time. Their will be some changes. If you dont like it then try again in four more years.

Bush isn't even a real Christian. He doesn't care for the poor (hmm did Jesus? I think so…) or the environment, and quite happily goes on about family values whilst carpet-bombing families in Iraq. He's also (probably) a thief or the White House.

As the law is written, there is nothing wrong with it. It says nothing about "the establishment" of religion or bannin any religion. All it says is that the courts can't interfere if an official chooses to be religious in publi.
Further, it bans the absurd policy of trying to use foriegn law for U.S. matters. If you are willing to accept legal precendet from other countries, then I could make a legal argument for stoning people to death on the basis that they are homosexual or adulterers.
Finally, it grants the authority neccessary to carry out the law.

Of course, I suppose if you, like Chess Squares, have a bitch radar that goes off when the word God is mentioned, than this is simply an intolerable peice of legislation.

no, i mean RADICAL. thanks for trying though

the current right wingers are more radical than reactionary, they are not just opposing progress and liberalism, they are trying to radically change the government and reshape it to their liking

look up definitions

Yet you could not be bothered to vote. So sit down, have a coke and a smile and shut the &*%$ up. ;)

HI GOD!

BYE FREEDOM! I'LL MISS YOU!
Done and done.

1) will this get passed? - yes. republicans control both houses of congress. democrats cant filibuster forever
2) will it stand up in courts? depends on when its passed. if its passed by 2006, yeah it will, they will take it to the supreme court who will rule it legal once filled with radical right wingers of the likes of clarence thomas. rehnquist wont last long and theres a definate hardcore right winger coming in soon
Republicans don't vote on strict party lines, espescially if what's being voted on is a bad idea. They aren't blinded by ideology. Not all republicans were elected by ueber-conservative evangelicals you realize?

And Bush won't appoint a right-winger. He'll appoint a conservative, but certainly not a right winger. And that conservative will be replacing a conservative. It won't change the balance of the court.

And Bush won't appoint a right-winger. He'll appoint a conservative, but certainly not a right winger. And that conservative will be replacing a conservative. It won't change the balance of the court.
im ignoring the other morons but here i gotta reply

rehnquist was starting to lean more left and there will be LIBERALS leaving the court, and he wont be appointing right wingers? his favorite justice is clarence thomas, an ultra right winger

[/QUOTE=Chess Squares]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 element of Federal, State, or local government or officer of such government by reason of that element´s or officer´s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.[/QUOTE]

Uh, I think there has been a little misinterpretation of this. A great many legal documents have prayer's for relief and mention 'God as the source of law, liberty, etc, etc', so that doesn't reallymean that much.

What they're are trying to do here is two things:

1) They are trying to limit the action a court can take against the government when the government gets sued. It looks like it is trying to provide immunity for government officials based on the soverign immunity clause in the Constitution. This could also be an effort to keep our officials and government from being sued be a foreign power, seeing as how it talks about foreign resolutions, EO's and international organizations.

2) It also looks a lot like a 'political' bill, or a bill that's put before the house to make a political statement, and not meant to be voted on or ratified.

This thing will never pass the house, and will definitely never make it through the SCOTUS. The justices aren't going to limit they're own powers, and I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that will allow Congress to define judicial powers.

You guys are dumbasses. I believe there might be something in the second amendment about freedom of religion, but I'm not too sure. Even if Bush wanted to make chrisianity the official religion, he couldn't. Also, you seem to think that all republicans are evil fascist, so far right they can't see the light of day. This is not true. Democrats are much further left than Republicans are right.

This is slightly off topic, but please, use your terms correctly. "Radical" refers to the extreme left. The word you're looking for is "reactionary." The only term I am aware of that actually describes extreme positions on both sides of the spectrum is "extremist."
No, that's correct usage of radical. Radical, in non-mathematical terms, means extreme, or deviating greatly from the standard. Reactionary is literally something favouring or marked by reaction, though you're correct in that it can mean ultraconservatism in politics.

You guys are dumbasses. I believe there might be something in the second amendment about freedom of religion, but I'm not too sure. Even if Bush wanted to make chrisianity the official religion, he couldn't. Also, you seem to think that all republicans are evil fascist, so far right they can't see the light of day. This is not true. Democrats are much further left than Republicans are right.

Dude, please don't call people dumbasses if you're going to confuse the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) with congress shall make no law abridging freedom of religion (1st Amendment). These are the first two Amendments to the Constitution and the first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights'. The 1st Amendment also includes the right of assembly, freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

Also, Democrats and Republicans have virtually identical campaign supporters, with a few exceptions. That means that they both are bought by the same people and owe favors to corporations and big money interests, and not to you or I, the people that elected them. Please try to remember that both parties, whatever their differences, are American. And we make America better through genuine debate and discourse, and not shrill name calling.

With the radical right now controlling both houses of Congress, the White House and the highest court in the land within a year or 2, the religious fanatics will now be pushing their agenda on all people - to remove all traces of non-christianity and to push their beliefs on all people without repercussion.

It will be a cold day in hell before the united states will again be at the forefront of any important aspect of society.

Then do us all a favor and leave.

Your resentment of attempts to preserve both states rights ( which I am sure you will see as "code" for racism ) and the right of the people to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion ( which you probably want to interpret as freedom FROM religion ) is painfully obvious.

Then do us all a favor and leave.

Your resentment of attempts to preserve both states rights ( which I am sure you will see as "code" for racism ) and the right of the people to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion ( which you probably want to interpret as freedom FROM religion ) is painfully obvious.

Actually, 'freedom of religon' is, by definition, freedom FROM religion. A great number of religions are militant toward other religions, especially in Western society where there are a great many of them. Thus, to be free to practice your own religon, you must be free FROM the practices of other religions.

This proposed ammendment is also religiously biased, if Chess Squares posted the exact wording. It mentions 'God', as in, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity, but fails to mention any other deity and/or belief and is not worded in a suitably faith-ambiguous way to allow interpretation that it applies to all religions. So if, for example, an Asatruer was voted into office, he/she would not be protected by this bill, as Asatru does not acknowledge the aforementioned Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity.

So petition them to change the wording, which I suspect that if this bill gets near ratification will have been changed anyway because of such a possible problem.

Democrats are much further left than Republicans are right.
No, by international standards, Democrats are centrist and Republicans are far-right. Not fascists, but still pretty far to the right-wing.

With the radical right now controlling both houses of Congress, the White House and the highest court in the land within a year or 2, the religious fanatics will now be pushing their agenda on all people - to remove all traces of non-christianity and to push their beliefs on all people without repercussion. A dozen states have already passed laws banning homosexuality and half a dozen have laws that prevent people from donig their job AND preventing others from doing their job because of religious beliefs (the pharmacist bullshit). Roe v Wade will be overturned within 3 years, mark my words. And while they are at it expect to be seeing more stuff like that



there is no question of if, so when this passes, no one will be able to be held accountable for inserting christianity into the government or anywhere else, not only that, but it will allow states to do what Clarence Thomas and George Bush have wet dreams about - declare an official state religion since this bill will no longer cause anything overturned at the federal level enforceable upon the states. dual federalism died a long time ago, and i think it deserves to stay dead. we are already on the 21st century crusade under a president who believes himself to be in the white house because of a mandate, and i doubt he thinks that mandate is from the people who voted him in.


it will be a cold day in hell before the united states will again be at the forefront of any important aspect of society.


Yet another panicked adolescent with a persecution complex (a rather common occurence actually).

Do your best to protect what you consider important, little one. It is encumbant on you that you do your very best to protect what you feel is right.

We'll see if perhaps America doesn't become a better place in the next bunch of years, with grownups at the helm, or whether we "degenerate" as you describe.

But in any case, you do your best to make America better, and I'll do my best to make America better.

See,.. we're on the same side..! :D

Well, you didn't vote anyway Chess Squares, so what do you care what the Bush administration does? If you don't even care enough to vote in the presidential elections, why are you whining so much?

Actually, 'freedom of religon' is, by definition, freedom FROM religion. A great number of religions are militant toward other religions, especially in Western society where there are a great many of them. Thus, to be free to practice your own religon, you must be free FROM the practices of other religions.

Actually, the 1st Amendment doesn't guaruntee freedom of religion, it says: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. What that means is Congress cannot establish a national church, like England had in the Anglican church. Being English meant being Anglican, which is what the founding fathers didn't want. Freedom of religion in with reference to the Constitution does mean freedom from religion', but not in the sense you're saying, it means being free from a government imposed religion, and is where we get our seperation of church and state challenges. Like the 10 Commandments challenge from Mississippi. People in this country are free to preach their religion to you, but the government cannot.

So if, for example, an Asatruer was voted into office, he/she would not be protected by this bill, as Asatru does not acknowledge the aforementioned Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity.

Not quite true, as most of our laws are built upon english common law and on canoninacal law, much of the language that make up many parts of the law are there by tradition and have no bearing on the actual mechinics and enforcement of the laws themselves.

Fight back.
Join the aclu.
Make them pay the price for every cutback of our freedoms.

http://www.aclufl.org/join_now/index.cfm

Fight back.
Join the aclu.
Make them pay the price for every cutback of our freedoms.

http://www.aclufl.org/join_now/index.cfm


A pithy response.

Do join the ACLU though. They throw such COOL parties..!

And this never would have happened, if they had just let them all secede...

This thing will never pass the house, and will definitely never make it through the SCOTUS. The justices aren't going to limit they're own powers, and I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that will allow Congress to define judicial powers.

The Congress has every right as to what the Jurisdiction of each court shall be except that which is expressly written into the Constitution.

Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution
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.

Article 3 Section 2.2 of the Constitution
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be
Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In
all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.

The problem with the Lawrence v Texas suit regarding two gay men caught in the act was that Justice Anthony Kennedy relied upon foreign law to make his decision. Since when are going to be living under foreign law? Especially to make our judicial rulings. Stick to the Constitution, that is all this law is trying to do, to force our courts to stick to the Constitution in making their decisions.

The Empire of Presidency is delighted to hear this news!

The Congress has every right as to what the Jurisdiction of each court shall be except that which is expressly written into the Constitution.

Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution
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.

Article 3 Section 2.2 of the Constitution
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be
Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In
all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.

The problem with the Lawrence v Texas suit regarding two gay men caught in the act was that Justice Anthony Kennedy relied upon foreign law to make his decision. Since when are going to be living under foreign law? Especially to make our judicial rulings. Stick to the Constitution, that is all this law is trying to do, to force our courts to stick to the Constitution in making their decisions.

First of all, that is one of the most concise, intelligent and well written rebuttals I think I have ever seen. Thank you.

Secondly, I would interperet the previous excerpts as meaning that Congress can establish the jurisdiction and circuits that the federal courts operate in, but cannot establish the criteria from which the courts can make a ruling, as that ultimate responsibility would lie with the SCOTUS. The reason I say this is that Section 3, 2.2 says 'supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact', would have the freedom to interperet based upon any body of law or form of evidence it sees fit to consider.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Lawrence vs. Texas was a 4th amendment violation case in Houston, where the plaintifs in question were broken in on by police when a neighbor called to complain on false pretenses. If I remember, the presiding judge couldn't find anything in previous legal statutes to make a consideration. And, I would, as a matter of opinion, want any sitting judges to be able to consider any ruling or decision, both foreign or domestic, to hopefully, be able to come to a fair and just decision.

The Congress has every right as to what the Jurisdiction of each court shall be except that which is expressly written into the Constitution.

Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution
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.

Article 3 Section 2.2 of the Constitution
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be
Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In
all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.

The problem with the Lawrence v Texas suit regarding two gay men caught in the act was that Justice Anthony Kennedy relied upon foreign law to make his decision. Since when are going to be living under foreign law? Especially to make our judicial rulings. Stick to the Constitution, that is all this law is trying to do, to force our courts to stick to the Constitution in making their decisions.


Common law ?

I've not read lawrence, but it is perfectly okay to look to foreign common law jurisdictions for persuausive authority if there is no domestice precedent.

(All common law jurisdictions share a history going back to 1189.)

Edit: Except for louisana.

sicne my internet is gay and my lastp ost didnt go thorugh ill sum it up

this act provides for the unquestionable rule of this country by the christian majority. it prevents any judges from ruling against any religious rule or law created by those in power and prevents judges from making any decision based on outside precedence, go go gadget isolationism. not only that but it

welcome to the theocratic states of america (under construction)

sicne my internet is gay and my lastp ost didnt go thorugh ill sum it up

this act provides for the unquestionable rule of this country by the christian majority. it prevents any judges from ruling against any religious rule or law created by those in power and prevents judges from making any decision based on outside precedence, go go gadget isolationism. not only that but it

welcome to the theocratic states of america (under construction)

That's not what it says at all.

Read it again.

Actually COngress can limit the Judical powers. The have to pass a constitional admendment to define the Jursidiction. But poeple relax if it passes then you will see America go through a revloution. Christians are not claiming this land that isn't theirs. Its the Native Americans who where here first. But so long as they don't take it back this plae is for everyone and minorites will be treated as humans. Christians can leave if they feel this place is not "Christian" enough.

Judical system only defines laws though. They can't rule on something not made. Just remeber that.

sicne my internet is gay and my lastp ost didnt go thorugh ill sum it up

this act provides for the unquestionable rule of this country by the christian majority. it prevents any judges from ruling against any religious rule or law created by those in power and prevents judges from making any decision based on outside precedence, go go gadget isolationism. not only that but it

welcome to the theocratic states of america (under construction)

Frankly, I find it telling that you choose to describe a percieved imperfection in your ISP service as "gay."

Frankly, I find it telling that you choose to describe a percieved imperfection in your ISP service as "gay."

Maybe his ISP is gay as in happy because it realizes the good in preventing Chess Squares from posting.

Judical system only defines laws though. They can't rule on something not made. Just remeber that.

I guess I'll remember this statement the next time that I read the Constitution and realize that abortion and homosexual marriage are not written into the Constitution.

So far as using foreign laws to write opinions, whats wrong with using American common, statutory, and constitutional law to write opinions. Why must our justices turn to outside sources to make a decision? Foreign law wasn't written for us and should not be applied to us. *edit* Not only that but using foreign law to make decisions is using law that has not been written by our duly elected officials and applying it to us through some awful court decision. *edit*

The Supreme Court may have granted certiorari for Lawrence v Texas based on a fourth amendment violation but they went on to upend the majority will of Texans in striking down their anti-sodomy law.

Going back to the Kennedy opinion in the Lawrence v Texas case, Kennedy wrote "The right the petitioners seek (to engage in sodomy) has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries". He goes on to sight the European Court of Human Rights and an amicus brief from some UN commisioner for human rights.

I agree with Antonin Scalia who wrote the dissenting opinion in this case, "Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence ... because foreign nations decriminalize conduct." and the supreme court "should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans."

When you read the last part of Article 3 Section 2.2, you will see that Congress has the right to lay down exceptions and regulations in regards to the jurisdiction of the federal courts except for the above mentioned cases in that section. So in that sense, this law is perfectly acceptable constitutionally. Of course thats no guarantee, look what happened to the McCain/Feingold act, totally unconstitutionaly but upheld anyway.

That's not what it says at all.

Read it again.

He's probably too busy eating lunch.

I guess I'll remember this statement the next time that I read the Constitution and realize that abortion and homosexual marriage are not written into the Constitution.

So far as using foreign laws to write opinions, whats wrong with using American common, statutory, and constitutional law to write opinions. Why must our justices turn to outside sources to make a decision? Foreign law wasn't written for us and should not be applied to us. *edit* Not only that but using foreign law to make decisions is using law that has not been written by our duly elected officials and applying it to us through some awful court decision. *edit*

The Supreme Court may have granted certiorari for Lawrence v Texas based on a fourth amendment violation but they went on to upend the majority will of Texans in striking down their anti-sodomy law.

Going back to the Kennedy opinion in the Lawrence v Texas case, Kennedy wrote "The right the petitioners seek (to engage in sodomy) has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries". He goes on to sight the European Court of Human Rights and an amicus brief from some UN commisioner for human rights.

I agree with Antonin Scalia who wrote the dissenting opinion in this case, "Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence ... because foreign nations decriminalize conduct." and the supreme court "should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans."

When you read the last part of Article 3 Section 2.2, you will see that Congress has the right to lay down exceptions and regulations in regards to the jurisdiction of the federal courts except for the above mentioned cases in that section. So in that sense, this law is perfectly acceptable constitutionally. Of course thats no guarantee, look what happened to the McCain/Feingold act, totally unconstitutionaly but upheld anyway.

I agree with nearly everything you say except for the but about American common law. I think in matters where there is no binding precendent, it is perfectly alright to look to foreign common law jurisdictions for persuasive authority (esp. when it is a purely a question of common law).

After all, techically, New Jersey is a foreign jurisdiction to New York.

(And there is no Federal common law).

My understanding is that common law is made up of all opinions made by prior justices in that jurisdiction, so there is a Federal common law made up with all decisions by prior federal judges.

So far as the meaning of the word foreign, I mean all foreign countries. Yes North Carolina is technically a foreign jurisdiction to Virginia and so is every other state. But what I mean is that we should not rely upon law that is not written by any state or by our Congress. We did not elect the people who wrote that law or put in place the judges who wrote those opinions so I believe it is wrong to impose foreign views and values upon Americans.

My pathetic attempt to see this post get back to the first page so it can be debated some more.

My understanding is that common law is made up of all opinions made by prior justices in that jurisdiction, so there is a Federal common law made up with all decisions by prior federal judges.

So far as the meaning of the word foreign, I mean all foreign countries. Yes North Carolina is technically a foreign jurisdiction to Virginia and so is every other state. But what I mean is that we should not rely upon law that is not written by any state or by our Congress. We did not elect the people who wrote that law or put in place the judges who wrote those opinions so I believe it is wrong to impose foreign views and values upon Americans.

Hopefully, this'll get it back to the first page.

BUT, I believe common law embodies English common law as well as American. Furthermore, common law as we refer to it was an English invention.

Maybe his ISP is gay as in happy because it realizes the good in preventing Chess Squares from posting.


He's probably too busy eating lunch.


Hahaha :D

Play nice ;) :fluffle:

Sorry for not quoting directly, but I'm feeling lazy right now.
The original poster said something about "when, not if, this law passes." All I have to say is, from the way the OP quoted this new act, if it does pass the Supreme Court will shoot it down. It doesn't matter which party has the majority of seats, no Justice will let a law go through that takes away his Constitutional right to keep his job until he dies.

"Radical" refers to the extreme left.

Radical refers to extreme anything. You can be a radical leftist, a radical libertarian, a radical conservative, a radical Christian, a radical idiot. Although, I prefer "flaming" to "radical" when used to describe my social liberalism - radical kind of implies something insane and fanatical, where flaming just means I'm way out there.

I only read the first page, but I think it is funny the whole Hi God Bye Freedom motto, when it is ironic that God himself gives us freedom. He gave us free will.

American common law is based upon English common law. And though the body of court rulings is well established in the US, there is no longer a need to rely on a foriegn nation's court rulings. The U.S. Supreme Court is not bound by any other court anywhere, US or otherwise. It only interprets the US Constitution. In making its rulings, it is free to use any source of information in making that determination.

In Lawrence, the Court based all of its decisions on the US Constitution and in the process of illuminating its reasoning alluded to other nation's rulings and constitutions. The decision made by the court was as American as every rule every made by that body. And the Supreme Court makes LAW. This is the very basis of common law and all other US courts are bound by the Supreme Court.

What is very important to remember about the last election was that the Republicans did slightly increase their hold on the Senate and the House. Does that mean they have a mandate to ignore the 49 percent who disagree with them, I think not. However, as seen in the first term of Bush, he has little regard for those who do not give him their unconditional support.

Another reality is that W. Bush is far more reactionary than his father, who I thought was a poor president and had no anchor what so ever. He eagerly catered to the masses, his son is worse.

As a gay man, the election was a sad day. To my fellow Republican citizens who believe that a victory over homosexuals was had, I submit you are wrong. We lost nothing. We lost no rights. You took away a possibility to have equal status with our neighbors. You already discriminated against us and have so for decades. Now you have simply codified your prejudices. You may not want to believe you are prejudice, but you are. Very few people have no prejudices, I have them, but I don't act upon them.

Christians, who led the way to these state amendments, celebrated on election day. I guess because they feel their marriages are saved. I don't see how, but I can see plainly, the are pleased and in many cases smug. It hardly seems they have any desire to know and respect their neighbors, they sadly acted out of fear, not love, not understanding.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 3/18/2004
He's not from my district (I'm registered in NM-1), but does anyone know if I can still call his office and lambast him for attaching my state's name to this repugnant piece of crap?

I guess I'll remember this statement the next time that I read the Constitution and realize that abortion and homosexual marriage are not written into the Constitution.

I believe the 10th amendment would cover this, and I'm not going to touch these with a 10 foot pole.

So far as using foreign laws to write opinions, whats wrong with using American common, statutory, and constitutional law to write opinions. Why must our justices turn to outside sources to make a decision? Foreign law wasn't written for us and should not be applied to us. *edit* Not only that but using foreign law to make decisions is using law that has not been written by our duly elected officials and applying it to us through some awful court decision. *edit*

The Supreme Court may have granted certiorari for Lawrence v Texas based on a fourth amendment violation but they went on to upend the majority will of Texans in striking down their anti-sodomy law.

Going back to the Kennedy opinion in the Lawrence v Texas case, Kennedy wrote "The right the petitioners seek (to engage in sodomy) has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries". He goes on to sight the European Court of Human Rights and an amicus brief from some UN commisioner for human rights.

Wait a second, if he sited an amicus brief for the UNHCR, it's not like he was directly citing a decision based on foreign law. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is part of the United Nations treaty and charter, of which the United States is a member. Having read the full text of the UNDHR, I can tell you there isn't really anything in it that's controversial, and we're talking about a document that seeks to define the basic rights that all people have, regardless of country, race or religion. We are part and treaty to the United Nations, and if a decision was based on acceptable international law and treaty when no American statute was available to the, then that would be acceptable.

I agree with Antonin Scalia who wrote the dissenting opinion in this case, "Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence ... because foreign nations decriminalize conduct." and the supreme court "should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans."

The right to be free of unlawful search and seizure is hardly a mood fad or fashion. I believe this is covered under the 4th amendment. These two men were caught in a 'crime' when they were searched without warrant or warning based upon the false testimony of a vindictive neighbor.

When you read the last part of Article 3 Section 2.2, you will see that Congress has the right to lay down exceptions and regulations in regards to the jurisdiction of the federal courts except for the above mentioned cases in that section. So in that sense, this law is perfectly acceptable constitutionally. Of course thats no guarantee, look what happened to the McCain/Feingold act, totally unconstitutionaly but upheld anyway.

How was McCain/Feingold unconstitutional? Also, I maintain that this bill won't pass SCOTUS because the justices, both conservative and liberal are not going to pass anything that limits their judicial power or the canon of law from which they can refer. This isn't a legal statement, it's more of a political/cynical one. I don't want anyone telling me how to do my job, I'm sure you don't either. I can only imagine if you're a Supreme Court justice...