NationStates Jolt Archive

Look at this:

http://context.themoscowtimes.com/index.php?aid=131199

Sigh. Hopefully not. Although the war in Iraq is disturbingly like a Crusade, and the campaign against gays is disturbingly like campaigns against Jews in old Spain and Germany...

A scary thought if this all turned out to be true . . . but something about it just turned on my "Conspiracy Theory" detector on full blast.

A scary thought if this all turned out to be true . . . but something about it just turned on my "Conspiracy Theory" detector on full blast.
Some research could answer that question, I'm just too lazy. Such an amendment would never pass both houses and 2/3rds of the states, though.

Moscowtimes!?

You couldnt find a less obscure source? Maybe one that isn't from Moscow, but from the Usa?

I hate Bush, but why be so paranoid?

Moscowtimes!?

yeah, seriously? But how exactly is the United States closer to being a theocracy now than at any other point in it's glorious history of hypocrisy? :p

That is an interesting article indeed. Much of the references to the "Dominionists" lack citations and references, however. I would like to hear more of this, if you have current research on the subject.

The point referencing Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is frightening, indeed.

To be honest, I'm not really sure if it's that reliable. I just thought it would make for some food for thought.

Sigh. Hopefully not. Although the war in Iraq is disturbingly like a Crusade, and the campaign against gays is disturbingly like campaigns against Jews in old Spain and Germany...

You're absolutely right. Now we aren't letting them marry, and next thing you know, they'll be herded off to the gas chambers.

Ah, the art of the misquote. Your "article" says this For even now, the ignorant barbarians in Washington are pushing a law through Congress that would "acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty [and] government" in the United States What the law quoted actually says is this 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. Firstly, the law itself does not acknowledge any such thing. Secondly, the law means that the courts cannot sue the govt. or a govt. official for either making remarks referencing god, or if god is mentioned in a piece of law. If it is unconstitutional the State or Federal Supreme court will still be able to declare it such, but the courts won't be able to strike it down just because some groups find it offensive.

Look at this:

http://context.themoscowtimes.com/index.php?aid=131199

Not to put too fine a point on it, but unadulterated bull-shit! Such a law would be immediately challenged in court and the Supreme Court, even with prmarily Republican-appointed Justices, would find it unconstitutional.

Okay, since no one's done the research, here's what I looked up.

Here is the skinny (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3799:) on the bill itself. In a nutshell, it regulates things as follows:

if passed, God's word can no longer be regulated by rulings of the supreme court, this law cannot be reviewed by the supreme court, other nation's works and constituions cannot be cited as examples, all previous rulings are ignorable as states see fit, and lastly any justice who rules on a case of this nature can be impeached.

There is no way it'll be passed.

Congress can't make any law restricting the Supreme Court's jurisdiction... any process of judicial review would strike it down instantly. Granted, judicial review isn't written into the constitution, but it is a de facto power that would take a lot more than a slight majority controlling the white house and congress to eliminate... and god knows I'd make a few very angry phone calls to my senator if he dared vote for that thing...

Congress can't make any law restricting the Supreme Court's jurisdiction... any process of judicial review would strike it down instantly.
Actually, that's not true at all. Congress can make any law it wants to restrict the Supreme Court, as long as said law is passed before a ruling is made.

"[T]he supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." -- Article III, Section 2, Clause ii.

Many times the Congress has used this clause to guard something from judicial review. It's mean, it's weaselly, but it's legit.

Actually, that's not true at all. Congress can make any law it wants to restrict the Supreme Court, as long as said law is passed before a ruling is made.

"[T]he supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." -- Article III, Section 2, Clause ii.

Many times the Congress has used this clause to guard something from judicial review. It's mean, it's weaselly, but it's legit.

That's not quite accurate. Congress cannot restrict judicial review, except by clarifying the language of a previously overturned law to conform to the stiulations of the court, by passing a new law which then must be challenged and go through the same judicial review process, or by initiating a Constitutional amendment process.

If Congress could restrict judicial review, abortions ( for example ) would probably now be severely restricted.

Actually, that's not true at all. Congress can make any law it wants to restrict the Supreme Court, as long as said law is passed before a ruling is made.
Not according to the Supreme Court, in its ruling on whatever case that was that established judicial review.

If Congress could restrict judicial review, abortions ( for example ) would probably now be severely restricted.
Perhaps. But at the time, Congress did not act to stop Roe v. Wade. Needless to say, judicial review cannot be restricted after the fact, and that's why abortion is now a national issue. (Must... control... fist... of... death...) The legislature is free to prevent a ruling from being made in the first place.

Now, would this "theocracy" law revolutionize church-state doctrine? Of course not. All it would do is prevent any new interpretations of the subject.

Not according to the Supreme Court, in its ruling on whatever case that was that established judicial review.
Marbury v. Madison. But what that said was that the court, in its rulings, is allowed to declare laws unconstitutional. To have a ruling, however, there must be a case. And for the Court to take a case, it must have jurisdiction. And the Congress can declare just about anything to be outside that jurisdiction. No jurisdiction = no case = no ruling = no declaration of constitutionality.

Marbury v. Madison. But what that said was that the court, in its rulings, is allowed to declare laws unconstitutional. To have a ruling, however, there must be a case. And for the Court to take a case, it must have jurisdiction. And the Congress can declare just about anything to be outside that jurisdiction. No jurisdiction = no case = no ruling = no declaration of constitutionality.

Can it really? It seems somewhat difficult to define a law that limits judicial review and that this limit somehow immediatelly applies to the law that was just passed.

Well, no law can declare itself above judicial review. If this law were passed, someone would have to create a challenge to it (by having a case thrown out due to jurisdiction) and have it declared unconstitutional before the courts could again rule on declarations of God's sovereignty. Of course, in the meantime, Congress could write another law to protect this one from the judiciary, but that would take way too much effort.

scalia that bastard. I seriously loathe the man.
Antonin scalia is teh suxxorz

That's not quite accurate. Congress cannot restrict judicial review, except by clarifying the language of a previously overturned law to conform to the stiulations of the court, by passing a new law which then must be challenged and go through the same judicial review process, or by initiating a Constitutional amendment process.

If Congress could restrict judicial review, abortions ( for example ) would probably now be severely restricted.

Actually, it's dead on accurate. Congress by act could curtail the Court's appelate jurisdiction... such an explicit enunciation of the Constitution would no doubt trump the "implicit" one found in Marbury to allow for judicial review. But this act is carefully crafted not to revoke judicial review, but to curtail the appelate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which it is Congress' prerogative to do. The Supreme Court will still have the power of judicial review... but it can only do so for matters under its jurisdiction. For example, the Supreme Court does not currently have judicial review for state court decisions which only have implications of state law. If only state law is involved, the Supreme Court cannot review the case because it lacks jurisdiction to do so.

The problem arises in that disputes between a citizen and a state are not subject only to the appellate jurisdiction of the court, but rather of the original jurisdiction of the court. That, the Congress cannot change without constitutional amendment.

Article III, Section 2
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.

The act is a paper tiger. It changes the appellate jurisdiction of the court for a matter that could easilly be brought under original jurisdiction. In order to put the matter before the Supreme Court as a matter for original jurisdiction, the complainant would just have to file a certiorari petition without even entering the state court (or lower federal court) system. If the Supreme Court really wanted to be heard on the matter, it would accept the case as one of original jurisdiction by granting the cert petition. In other words, THERE'S A GIANT LOOP HOLE THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CLOSE WITHOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION!

Furthermore, this was introduced in February and has not been touched since. The moscow times article approaches it from a very skewed (and uninformed) perspective on one end of the political spectrum, much as this article ( http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37198 ) does from the opposite side. I'd say paranoia is running a little deep here.

I would not worry about this bill, but just to play it safe... I submitted it to drudge. :-)

James Madison said this: "The seperation of church and state exists for the protection of the church." Just let these people with their Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 think about that. BTW, all this talk reminds me of Escape from LA from John Carpenter. I didn't know he was a prophet.

The problem arises in that disputes between a citizen and a state are not subject only to the appellate jurisdiction of the court, but rather of the original jurisdiction of the court. That, the Congress cannot change without constitutional amendment.

It sounds like that is exactly what the act is attempting to do thoug - "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."

It almost sounds like a law taylor-made for Judge Moore's case.

Some research could answer that question, I'm just too lazy. Such an amendment would never pass both houses and 2/3rds of the states, though.
There is the school of thought that the Reps are just stringing along the fundis with things they know will never float just to keep that portion of their vote base intact. There was a great piece in the NYT about how Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, uses that money to push some of the most liberal shows in broadcast TV. Uh, lessie - a link would be good . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/arts/14rich.html?oref=login

Yes, you'll have to log in but hell, it's the NYT - it's not like you'll never use it again.