NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8923.htm

It has a link to the bill so it should be legit (unless I'm missing an attempt at a joke here).

I'm a bit too tired to read it so does anyone else have an analysis?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8923.htm

It has a link to the bill so it should be legit (unless I'm missing an attempt at a joke here).

I'm a bit too tired to read it so does anyone else have an analysis?
Yes, it's a real bill, but it most likely won't actually do anything.

Let them believe in it, it will also harm their sience and business when they believe in creationisme instead of science.

"Yes, Adam and Eve made the world, they are the oldest people, born 6500 years ago" likle the US creationists say.
I follow the artefacts that give us the Australopiticus, more then100.000 years old. Sience never stops, those idiots are believing, we research!

*sniggers my social sciences panties off*

and your faith in 'true science' is so different?

Can someone point to me in this bill that I am missing that turns the US into a theocracy please?

Ah yes...the good old wacko clearing house aka the Republican Party...such fun stuff :(

Let them believe in it, it will also harm their sience and business when they believe in creationisme instead of science.

"Yes, Adam and Eve made the world, they are the oldest people, born 6500 years ago" likle the US creationists say.
I follow the artefacts that give us the Australopiticus, more then100.000 years old. Sience never stops, those idiots are believing, we research!

Adam and Eve did not create the world, bub.

And the wording of the bill can be twisted so many ways that it's impossible to tell its true meaning. But it does sound like a ludicrous bill.

I follow the artefacts that give us the Australopiticus, more then100.000 years old. Sience never stops, those idiots are believing, we research!



*Tries to restrain herself from a full-blown bombardment of evidence discrediting the Australopithecus*


Seriously, you evolutionists need to at least update the curriculum ;)

The potential abuses of this are mindboggling, but I guess to major news networks, far less important than Michael Jackson, or deep throat from 30 years ago.

Now people who act on the anti-thesis of the separation of church and state - those that think that God and Religion make the laws - are free from legal questioning? WTF is that?

I can see it now:

Random Republican Lawmaker - Well the bill passes, any american who has premarital sex is to be stoned to death.

Judge - hmmm, that doesn't seem right.. What is your basis for this?

Republican Lawmaker - The bible says so, God says so. Let it be so.

Judge - oh, when you put it that way...

EDIT: anyone know how to send something to the Daily Show, w/ John Stewart? They would be the perfect people to get some publicity on this ludicrousness.

I am not surprised that it seeks to, restrict "federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign countries and international law [e.g., against torture, global warming, unjust wars, etc.]." Who cares about stupid things like torture and war for oil?

The potential abuses of this are mindboggling, but I guess to major news networks, far less important than Michael Jackson, or deep throat from 30 years ago.

Now people who act on the anti-thesis of the separation of church and state - those that think that God and Religion make the laws - are free from legal questioning? WTF is that?

I can see it now:

Random Republican Lawmaker - Well the bill passes, any american who has premarital sex is to be stoned to death.

Judge - hmmm, that doesn't seem right.. What is your basis for this?

Republican Lawmaker - The bible says so, God says so. Let it be so.

Judge - oh, when you put it that way...

That's an impossible scenario. 8th Amendment.

I am not surprised that it seeks to, restrict "federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign countries and international law [e.g., against torture, global warming, unjust wars, etc.]." Who cares about stupid things like torture and war for oil?

If the war was for oil, gas prices wouldn't be so god damned high. Nice try, though.

That's an impossible scenario. 8th Amendment.
Ho ho ho, but you can't strike it down because the courts have no authority over cases dealing with religous laws.

Ho ho ho, but you can't strike it down because the courts have no authority over cases dealing with religous laws.

Ho, ho, ho, I think you're wrong. Basically, I think the law is trying to prohibit groups like the ACLU from bitching at the boy scouts for having public funds, and kicking people out for not believing God and shit like that.

If the war was for oil, gas prices wouldn't be so god damned high. Nice try, though.

If it wasn't so profitable petrol prices wouldn't be so high. Nice try, though. By the way, try not to take the name of God in vain please. ;)

Ho, ho, ho, I think you're wrong. Basically, I think the law is trying to prohibit groups like the ACLU from bitching at the boy scouts for having public funds, and kicking people out for not believing God and shit like that.
And what exactly is wrong with preventing the government from violating the first amendment?

What makes that first amendment less worthy of protection then the eigth?

That's an impossible scenario. 8th Amendment.

I'm quite well aware that it might be cruel and unusual punishment. The point of the example was to point out the ridiculousness of this crap, while providing a possible example of how it could be abused. If you would like a better example, fill in any Christian commandment/decree/law/order from the Bible or any other Christian source, and then tack on any punishment. It would fly, because fundamentalists slipped this bill under the radar preventing judicial action.

My point:

We take another step towards theocracy. One nation, run by God, with Christianity and Moralism for all.

Though I must admit, the Christian States of America has a ring to it, no?

If the war was for oil, gas prices wouldn't be so god damned high. Nice try, though.

That only proves that Bush is getting a cut of the profits due to increased prices.. see:

High prices = Bush is forcing prices up to make a profit.
Low prices = Bush is cheating oil producers gain popularity among commuters.

No matter what happens to oil, it's Bush's evil plot, clearly. :)

Hmm, well I would like to know where that bill is in committee...

And when in the hell did Bill Moyers become that much of a political insider?

And Shelby having a conversation with Kubric? Am I the only one else here that wonders about that occuring anytime soon.

I doubt that this bill will get out of committee in its current form, let alone out of the Senate.

Even if it did pass that wouldn't make us a Theocracy. There is nothing stopping a Muslim, Jew, or Satanist from being elected or holding office or expressing their beleifs in that bill. And a Theocracy sort of needs a sigular religion dominating all aspects of government.

Based on that bill, if my town elected a Mayor who beleived that the universe was created by Ubo the Dog of Chaos taking a sh**. I couldn't sue him if he stated as Mayor that we are all part of a large ball of doggie doo doo ever expanding.

I might not vote for him after that...but I couldnt' take him to court about it either.

Actually the British are right on this: Americans on both sides of the religious divide are over reacting chicken littles.

I'm not too worried about a theocracy in America. This bill is (from my point of view) just another way for a buch of hardliners to let off steam.

The simple truth is that American politicians are self serving. The following shit storm would ensure that most of them would never see office again. This obviously doesn't fit into their comfortable plans, so it won't pass. Or at least that's what I think.

A dumb reason? Yes. But hey, life isn't perfect. :headbang:

I'm quite well aware that it might be cruel and unusual punishment. The point of the example was to point out the ridiculousness of this crap, while providing a possible example of how it could be abused. If you would like a better example, fill in any Christian commandment/decree/law/order from the Bible or any other Christian source, and then tack on any punishment. It would fly, because fundamentalists slipped this bill under the radar preventing judicial action.

My point:

We take another step towards theocracy. One nation, run by God, with Christianity and Moralism for all.

Though I must admit, the Christian States of America has a ring to it, no?





And that's a bad thing?

This bill is in essence a farce. It does little to nothing. However you could argue that the US has always been a bit of a theocracy....we've never had anything but a Christian President....

Oh, and no one took the lord's name in vain, that would require a capitilazation of "God" referring to the deity in the Chrisitian religion. The phrase "god damned" could refer to any god including Nike if you like.

Ho, ho, ho, I think you're wrong. Basically, I think the law is trying to prohibit groups like the ACLU from bitching at the boy scouts for having public funds, and kicking people out for not believing God and shit like that.

This is more like it Haloman. I'm still waiting for someone to point to the part of the law that they say is turning the US into a theocracy.

That only proves that Bush is getting a cut of the profits due to increased prices.. see:

High prices = Bush is forcing prices up to make a profit.
Low prices = Bush is cheating oil producers gain popularity among commuters.

No matter what happens to oil, it's Bush's evil plot, clearly. :)

I hope you're being sarcastic.

My point:

We take another step towards theocracy. One nation, run by God, with Christianity and Moralism for all.

Though I must admit, the Christian States of America has a ring to it, no?

Proof of this please and point to the part in the bill that proves it.

This is more like it Haloman. I'm still waiting for someone to point to the part of the law that they say is turning the US into a theocracy.

Yeah, I don't see it, either.

Everyone bitches about the U.S. being a theocracy, and it gets annoying. Go over to the Middle East, come back here and then try to say that the U.S. is a theocracy. Give me a break.

If the war was for oil, gas prices wouldn't be so god damned high. Nice try, though.

If they could stabilize the region then the prices would drop. The turmoil caused by the war in Iraq ain't helping prices any. Remember how unprepared for the insurgency we were? Things aren't going to plan, that's all.

Yeah, I don't see it, either.

Everyone bitches about the U.S. being a theocracy, and it gets annoying. Go over to the Middle East, come back here and then try to say that the U.S. is a theocracy. Give me a break.

I agree Haloman. This bill is sound in my opinion. They are just trying to protect everyone's 1st amendment rights. Its about time too in my opinion.

If they could stabilize the region then the prices would drop. The turmoil caused by the war in Iraq ain't helping prices any. Remember how unprepared for the insurgency we were? Things aren't going to plan, that's all.

No battle ever survives first contact with the enemy.

Yeah, I don't see it, either.

Everyone bitches about the U.S. being a theocracy, and it gets annoying. Go over to the Middle East, come back here and then try to say that the U.S. is a theocracy. Give me a break.

Over reaction, the left beleives in complete secularism. They tend to try to pump stories like this with good headlines.

Oh, and before anyone jumps up and down about old Bushie and oil. Remember he made most of his money in baseball*.

So...when are we going to start seeing the Bagdad Bombers hit the feild?
(That was an unintentionally horrid joke)
Yup...right now they are planning an eighty thousand seat stadium somewhere in the green zone.

*Managing owner of the Texas Rangers

No battle ever survives first contact with the enemy.

http://blog.artikel-20.de/img/mission-accomplished.jpg

Its a good thing we have leaders who know that and understand how unpredictable war can be.

It's not like you can just level a country and expect to be showered with flowers and candy.

http://blog.artikel-20.de/img/mission-accomplished.jpg

Its a good thing we have leaders who know that and understand how unpredictable war can be.

It's not like you can just level a country and expect to be showered with flowers and candy.

Yeah, it's not like you can liberate a country and expect support. :p

http://blog.artikel-20.de/img/mission-accomplished.jpg

Its a good thing we have leaders who know that and understand how unpredictable war can be.

It's not like you can just level a country and expect to be showered with flowers and candy.

Do you remember how long it took to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII? Years. If anyone thought this was an overnight thing, there's a bridge for sale in San Fran and a beach in Miami that is also for sale.

As for the Flowers, the Italians did after we ravaged their country though they capitulated in 1943.

Just thought I'd throw in my thoughts.

This thing in no way makes a "theocracy". That would require a requirement of religious beliefs in public officials, not simply allowing them to have beliefs (heaven forbid!).

Also, the thing about not allowing foreign crap into our judicial proceedings. I'm sorry, but I don't want Scandanavian laws being used to determine what people are "free" to do. The sad thing is that it happens now. Don't believe me, then just try and find some of the crap they argue in the Constitution or even Engish common law. It's not there. They take it from any democracy in the world, and that is not how the system should work.

You know, I agree with a lot of people here. That this bill is supposedly going to set up a theocracy is a bit of a stretch. I certainly don't like the way it is headed, but I can't think of a rational arguement to counter the bill with regards to it's religious aspect.

What does concern me though is that it limits what the courts can use as precedent and it makes for the impeachement of judges if they violate their jurisdiction. As far as I know this hasn't been done before.

And no I don't care that we can't use the laws of foreign nations, but why shouldn't our courts hold to treatise and other such agreements we have ratified such as, oh I don't know, the Geneva Convention or U.N. Human Rights agreements.

*Tries to restrain herself from a full-blown bombardment of evidence discrediting the Australopithecus*


Seriously, you evolutionists need to at least update the curriculum ;)

Oh they did. However, much of what "discredits" Australopithecus being an ancestor is just as sketchy as the evidence "supporting" it. Frankly, we don't have enough evidence to prove much of anything about them and any possible link.

Oh, and they lived 4-5 million years ago, I do believe. Not 100,000, which is more in line with Neanderthals.

If they could stabilize the region then the prices would drop. The turmoil caused by the war in Iraq ain't helping prices any. Remember how unprepared for the insurgency we were? Things aren't going to plan, that's all.

Oh how naive the general public is.

There is no shortage of oil. Infact, I wouldn't doubt that we have much more oil now than before the oil.

The reason why the oil prices are is because of two reason:

1)Oil companies are withholding their product, allowing prices to jack up before they ship it.

2)Oil companies are using the current situation in the Mid-East for public hysteria, thus the notion of oil not existing is caused, allowing them to have a reason for not providing their product, thus allowing the prices to go up before they ship.

Don't believe me? Well, not to long ago there were over ten oil tankers outside of a harbor in New York just sitting there... all full... waiting for prices to go up.

Seriously, it's how the business works. The current situation is ripe for the picking for oil companies.

Still reading this.

WTF. They want our courts to go by a foreign constitution (the english constitution is foreign governing document). First impression is that maybe they trying to get us to rejoin the British Empire. Nah, can't be. ;)

Actually I agree with it for the most part except for the part where it says "entity" where I would have concerns. How do they define entity? Is it as person working for the government? If so I don't have a problem. If they mean agency or branch of the government or something similar then I have problem. Just as I have a problem when cities are allowed to sponsor religious festivals under the claim that the restrictions on govt in the US Constitution don't apply to city governments. Which of course is only because no one has challenged those laws. And when such ordinances are challenged they tend to be generally overturned. But cities insist on them anyway.
If they mean to protect individuals who have sued for say posting the ten commandments on public property, this law will go a long way toward protecting individual rights. If they are talking about protecting a government agency's power to sponsor or discourage a particular religious practice, then this bill is not good. Only individual citizens have rights. Government agencies, corporations, and groups of people do not have rights. Only individuals.

Yes, it's a real bill, but it most likely won't actually do anything.
Your wrong. It would significantly curtail the powers of the court over religious cases. Which in itself can be good or bad. The way it is written I am leaning toward the bad.

Let them believe in it, it will also harm their sience and business when they believe in creationisme instead of science.

"Yes, Adam and Eve made the world, they are the oldest people, born 6500 years ago" likle the US creationists say.
I follow the artefacts that give us the Australopiticus, more then100.000 years old. Sience never stops, those idiots are believing, we research!
You must mean Australipithicus. Yes, though I am creationist, I do follow the fossil record. Also, creationists don't believe the world was created 6500 years ago. The actual date is more like 6,008 years ago. That would be the literal creationists. Now there are other creationist groups that think a day in Genesis represents not a literal day but a period of time like say 100 or 1,000 or even 1 million years. They use the scripture where its says that a thousand day for man are but as one day to God.

Can someone point to me in this bill that I am missing that turns the US into a theocracy please?
the part where it includes banning the courts from hearing cases that are brought against government agencies for violations of religious liberty could potentially be a step toward theocracy.

So you know, there are very powerful evangelicals pushing this bill, such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and many others. This bill will likely be passed because those groups have powerful influence. I read about this a while back when US News did a special feature on the rise of the evangelical electorate and did articles on the movements most prominant leaders.
Dobson said he was working with the others to get a bill like very similar to this one passed.

*Tries to restrain herself from a full-blown bombardment of evidence discrediting the Australopithecus*


Seriously, you evolutionists need to at least update the curriculum ;)

Present your evidence.

*Tries to restrain herself from a full-blown bombardment of evidence discrediting the Australopithecus*


Seriously, you evolutionists need to at least update the curriculum ;)
How about the new finds in the Afar region AFTER Afarensis? You know, the TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS of four-limb usage to standing upright? The ones found by Lucy? Are you up to date?
Or Avida?
Or Ambulocetus Natans?
Or Anopheles?
There's more ... maybe i'll post!

If the war was for oil, gas prices wouldn't be so god damned high. Nice try, though.
Try shifting your paradigm and you might see the broader picture.

BTW, whether the cost of gas is high or low, the oil companies do not seem to have any problem making billions of dollars in profit.

How about the new finds in the Afar region AFTER Afarensis? You know, the TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS of four-limb usage to standing upright? The ones found by Lucy? Are you up to date?
Or Avida?
Or Ambulocetus Natans?
Or Anopheles?
There's more ... maybe i'll post!
what I would like to know is how she can be certain that adam and eve were not Australipithicines. After all, if you compare a modern skull with a skull of someone from say, Babylonian times, you will notice distinct differences that are a result of the continuing evolution of mankind.
So how does she know that Adam and Eve weren't hairy. There are at least two places where the Bible describes hairy people. If I am right, Esau was one of them.

Yeah, it's not like you can liberate a country and expect support. :p


The worst thing that can happen to a people is to be 'liberated'. Towards the end of WWII a poor little town in Eastern European was 'liberated' several times by the Soviets and Nazis in one day. By the end of the day there wasn't a town left to liberate.

...So please, lay off the "we liberated poor iraqis from evil saddam" rhetoric. It's a very flimsy excuse for war, and got old a long time ago.

Do you remember how long it took to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII? Years. If anyone thought this was an overnight thing, there's a bridge for sale in San Fran and a beach in Miami that is also for sale.

As for the Flowers, the Italians did after we ravaged their country though they capitulated in 1943.

You agree with my point, then? The Bush administration was not prepared for the insurgency and thought the hard part was done when they ousted Saddam.

And all wars and countries differ BTW. Italy is Italy and Iraq is Iraq. Italy dragged out its dictator and stoned him to death IIRC. Iraq, not so much.

If I am right, Esau was one of them.

Yes, you are. I actually read something speculating about that. It was along the lines of Jacob (non hairy new man), replacing Esua (hairy more primitive man), and suggested that the myth of jacob and esau was a "race" memory of driving the neandthals out.

Now there is probably a lot wrong with that - not least the "race' memory bit, but I thought it was interesting anyway.

Yes, you are. I actually read something speculating about that. It was along the lines of Jacob (non hairy new man), replacing Esua (hairy more primitive man), and suggested that the myth of jacob and esau was a "race" memory of driving the neandthals out.

Now there is probably a lot wrong with that - not least the "race' memory bit, but I thought it was interesting anyway.

Noah was, in fact, a stegosaurus.

Noah was, in fact, a stegosaurus.

Enough of your popery sir! We in the protestant church acknowledge Noah as the one true triceretops, and I'll have no more of your blaspheming.

You agree with my point, then? The Bush administration was not prepared for the insurgency and thought the hard part was done when they ousted Saddam.

Your partly right. However, the administration was thinking there was going to be an insurgency. However, they did not expect how large it was going to be. That is what they underestimated.

And all wars and countries differ BTW. Italy is Italy and Iraq is Iraq. Italy dragged out its dictator and stoned him to death IIRC. Iraq, not so much.

Agreed but remember, it was the Americans that got their hands on Saddam First. I cringe at the thought if the Shi'ites or the Kurds got their hands on him first.

Oh how naive the general public is.

There is no shortage of oil. Infact, I wouldn't doubt that we have much more oil now than before the oil.

The reason why the oil prices are is because of two reason:

1)Oil companies are withholding their product, allowing prices to jack up before they ship it.

2)Oil companies are using the current situation in the Mid-East for public hysteria, thus the notion of oil not existing is caused, allowing them to have a reason for not providing their product, thus allowing the prices to go up before they ship.

Don't believe me? Well, not to long ago there were over ten oil tankers outside of a harbor in New York just sitting there... all full... waiting for prices to go up.

Seriously, it's how the business works. The current situation is ripe for the picking for oil companies.

Maybe I should have said "The war is making it look like it has become more dangerous to produce oil so they can gouge consumers."

Try shifting your paradigm and you might see the broader picture.

BTW, whether the cost of gas is high or low, the oil companies do not seem to have any problem making billions of dollars in profit.

CanuckHeaven, Oil is used for more products than just Gas you know. I guess someone forgot to mention makeup and plastics as oil based products just to name two.

Meh, quit being so alarmist.

Agreed but remember, it was the Americans that got their hands on Saddam First. I cringe at the thought if the Shi'ites or the Kurds got their hands on him first.

I think that's what we've been hoping for since Gulf War I, actually. We knew the Sunni's were n't going to do it.

Civil war seems likely with our method of doing things or if the Kurds of Shia overthrew Saddam. It would leave the Sunnis fearing reprisal in either case, leading to inevitable distrust and division.

well the U.S was technically founded as a theocracy what with the bill or rights and constitution heavily influenced by the bible, its not theocracy in the way we dont rely on god to solve our problems or force people into a religion.

I think that's what we've been hoping for since Gulf War I, actually. We knew the Sunni's were n't going to do it.

Civil war seems likely with our method of doing things or if the Kurds of Shia overthrew Saddam. It would leave the Sunnis fearing reprisal in either case, leading to inevitable distrust and division.

I can agree with this but luckily, the Civil War isn't materializing. Now the Sunnis are joining the political process and that's a good thing in my opinion. Now I can't wait for Saddam's Trial. That should be interesting to watch.

Can't wait to see his head on a platter! :D

well the U.S was technically founded as a theocracy what with the bill or rights and constitution heavily influenced by the bible, its not theocracy in the way we dont rely on god to solve our problems or force people into a religion.

I have to question this. How is the Bill of Rights and the Constitution heavily influenced by the Bible?

...if we're not careful and don't stand up for our rights, what the US is going to become is a *dictatorship*, led by George W. Dictator & Cronies... Where you will only be safe if you're straight, anti-environment, pro-life, and religious...

Just my opinion...

Jen

...if we're not careful and don't stand up for our rights, what the US is going to become is a *dictatorship*, led by George W. Dictator & Cronies... Where you will only be safe if you're straight, anti-environment, pro-life, and religious...

Just my opinion...

Jen

I'm confused with this post since its so full of crap I don't even know where to begin with this. I guess I'll leave it alone for now.

Let them believe in it, it will also harm their sience and business when they believe in creationisme instead of science.

"Yes, Adam and Eve made the world, they are the oldest people, born 6500 years ago" likle the US creationists say.
I follow the artefacts that give us the Australopiticus, more then100.000 years old. Sience never stops, those idiots are believing, we research!

It requires just as much faith to believe in science(spell it right if you're going to believe it) than it does to believe in christianity probably even more. Darwin wasn't even sure of himself and some of his "discoveries" so why should we believe in something that contradicts itself where the bible clearly is the whole truth and has no contradictions no other book on this planet can say that.

Yes, you are. I actually read something speculating about that. It was along the lines of Jacob (non hairy new man), replacing Esua (hairy more primitive man), and suggested that the myth of jacob and esau was a "race" memory of driving the neandthals out.

Now there is probably a lot wrong with that - not least the "race' memory bit, but I thought it was interesting anyway.

I just search Esau on Bible.com and found it very interesting on what it had to say. I wouldn't call it a "race memory" but more like a story that was carried through the oral tradition of storytelling before people started writing this stuff down. I think the story of how things all began would be one of the most commonly orally-repeated stories in our history so I'm not surprised to see it in Genesis. It probably is a remnant when we were living side-by-side with other hominids as they were dying out. Very fascinating.

Seems 'Esau' lived peacefully with humans but had trouble gathering food and was dying out for some reason. Don't know what happened to Esau other than 'dispising his birthright' but Issac may have named his son Esau, after him. Which I guess means the original Esau died by then.

EDIT

I really do think we did human history a disservice by including this story in Genesis. Doing so just made it a part of religious dogma. I don't think the original storytellers intended it to be literal but fanciful. The story of Genesis is one you tell kids. It is easier to get them to stay still and hold their interest with a fanciful story where characters lived in a bountiful garden and could live for centuries in a world where real people had to work hard to stay alive to the ripe old age of 30, rather than expect them to hold thri interest through a 2 hour documentary.

Hopefully the media will get a hold of this bill, and we can get some public opinion.

I doubt it will be passed. If it is...I heard Canada has great weather, ;)

Hopefully the media will get a hold of this bill, and we can get some public opinion.

I doubt it will be passed. If it is...I heard Canada has great weather, ;)

I haven't heard much coming from the Congressmen. I'm surprised this isn't in the press right now to be honest. I'm sure the Democrats would've been crowing over this bill saying its a violation of the Constitution yada yada yada.

Actually, the bottleneck in U.S. petroleum prices isn't just oil (and most of the increased demand that is rising oil prices is in China, not the U.S) but also the number of refineries in the U.S.

There hasn't been a new refinery in the U.S. in what...twenty years? While about twenty have been shuttered in that same time period. Now those refineries have been becoming more efficent with better control over the Fluidized Catalitic Cracking systems that turn oil into gas and plastic precursers but increased efficency only gets you so far.

New Jersey only has a 625,000 Barrel Capacity of processing anymore with two refineries presently shuttered.

Texas 4,467,610 BCD in comparison.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone didn't buy oil cheap and then let it get stored on the tankers while they process it.

Religion has no place in politics, period.

did anyone actually read the bill and compare it to the remarks made in the article? This is atrocious misuse of information! look at these two quotes:

First from the article: "If passed, the bill also would limit the ability of judges to interpret the Constitution if it involved "any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States." "

Now from the actual bill : "In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States."

Basically, the writer of this article misused a quote from the text of the article! Look at the wording of the bill- all it says is that judges can't interpret the constitution with any other law dating before the constitution except English Common law. What's so restricting about that?

Now for the "Controversial" part: "`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 entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'"

Read this slowly and carefully-notice it has nothing to do with turning the aspects of government around, just that judges cannot review a federal agent's belief of God as his creator. What's bad about that?

The fact of the matter is, this "website" is a disgrace filled with lies and slander. Do not believe a word of it. Just look at the other headlines on their homepage, and I think you'll agree.

It requires just as much faith to believe in science(spell it right if you're going to believe it) than it does to believe in christianity probably even more. Darwin wasn't even sure of himself and some of his "discoveries" so why should we believe in something that contradicts itself where the bible clearly is the whole truth and has no contradictions no other book on this planet can say that.

'The Lord of the Rings', by JRR Tolkien, is pretty free from contradictions. And Tolkien said he translated it, therefore it is 'clearly' the whole truth. Seeing as the Silmarillion is also fairly contradiction-free, we should all worship Lord Manwe Sulimo, Lord of the Breath of Arda, and his bride, Queen Varda Elentari.

No? Whyever not? Because you don't happen to believe that it's true? Yeah. That's what I thought.

On a lighter note:

Though I must admit, the Christian States of America has a ring to it, no?

Hmm, CSA... where have I heard those initials before? Ohhhhh yeah...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8923.htm

It has a link to the bill so it should be legit (unless I'm missing an attempt at a joke here).

I'm a bit too tired to read it so does anyone else have an analysis?
It's a hoax:

"We didn't find any Web pages matching the following criteria:
Restricted to .gov domain/site(s)
Containing this query term: "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005""

It requires just as much faith to believe in science(spell it right if you're going to believe it) than it does to believe in christianity probably even more. Darwin wasn't even sure of himself and some of his "discoveries" so why should we believe in something that contradicts itself where the bible clearly is the whole truth and has no contradictions no other book on this planet can say that.

Nah. Faith is the belief in something despite any evidence. Science is the complete opposite as it is concerned with finding facts and believing in only what you can prove exists. There have been lots of facts found to show that Darwin had the right idea.

We believe in evolution not out of faith, but because we have evidence that it has occurred (and is occurrring).

It's a hoax:

"We didn't find any Web pages matching the following criteria:
Restricted to .gov domain/site(s)
Containing this query term: "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005""

Isn't the link to the Bill on a .gov domain?

http://thomas.loc.gov/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:

I got 705 hits on Google with "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005"

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Constitution+Restoration+Act+of+2005

This site says it isn't a hoax

http://www.deism.org/Newsarchivemay2005.htm

I found a PDF from a Christian group saying it was true (and necessary):

http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/ConstitutionRestorationAct2004.pdf

And apparently they tried to do it in 2004

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-120776.html
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=102802)

Isn't the link to the Bill on a .gov domain?

http://thomas.loc.gov/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:

I got 705 hits on Google with "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005"

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Constitution+Restoration+Act+of+2005

This site says it isn't a hoax

http://www.deism.org/Newsarchivemay2005.htm

All I know is that Yahoo can't find any .gov sites which contain the phrase: "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005." Perhaps their database is in need of updating. ( shrug )

I'm not too worried.

Chances are, even if the bill was passed, the Supreme Court would place a nice little unconstitutional sticker on it and void it, since there's nothing in the bill stopping them from doing that.

I'm not too worried.

Chances are, even if the bill was passed, the Supreme Court would place a nice little unconstitutional sticker on it and void it, since there's nothing in the bill stopping them from doing that.

Unless its using an obscure section of the law that prohibits the courts from ever hearing about this bill. Its precisely what I would do if I was Congress. That way, its protected.

All I know is that Yahoo can't find any .gov sites which contain the phrase: "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005." Perhaps their database is in need of updating. ( shrug )
Use Thomas.

I'm not too worried.

Chances are, even if the bill was passed, the Supreme Court would place a nice little unconstitutional sticker on it and void it, since there's nothing in the bill stopping them from doing that.
Nor could there be. Labeling a bill as "not subject to judicial oversight" would, in and of itself, render the bill unconstitutional. :)

I agree that this bill, if passed, would be declared unconstitutional, and rightly so.

Unless its using an obscure section of the law that prohibits the courts from ever hearing about this bill. Its precisely what I would do if I was Congress. That way, its protected.

Mind pointing where this is? I don't see it. Not to mention that would be illegal anyway...

Mind pointing where this is? I don't see it.

It doesn't have to be precisely stated. I'll go and check the US Code book regarding this but I believe that this is falling into that category that if passed, it can't be viewed by the courts no matter what.

I will go and double check the laws though just to be sure.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8923.htm

It has a link to the bill so it should be legit (unless I'm missing an attempt at a joke here).

I'm a bit too tired to read it so does anyone else have an analysis?


good it's about time.
I'm tired of the courts telling me what I can and cannot publicly believe. Liberals flaunt free speech because it lets them say whatever kind of seditious things about the government they want but if a Christian tries to exercise his right to free speech by professing a belief in God in public then he is at very best ridiculed but more likely he is sued or thrown out of wherever he happens to be. That's freedom of speech for you, thank God for this bill even if it doesn’t pass.
(I know this is gonna get flamed but I really don't care so save the effort :rolleyes: In fact ask yourself before you start typing how you would feel if the writings of Marx or whoever you happen to follow were banned from even being mentioned in public forum)

good it's about time.
I'm tired of the courts telling me what I can and cannot publicly believe. Liberals flaunt free speech because it lets them say whatever kind of seditious things about the government they want but if a Christian tries to exercise his right to free speech by professing a belief in God in public then he is at very best ridiculed but more likely he is sued or thrown out of wherever he happens to be. That's freedom of speech for you, thank God for this bill even if it doesn’t pass.

Liberals get ridiculed and threatened for their freedom of speech and always have from pro-abortionist to civil rights leaders to abolitionists. Many of them were hunted and killed for their beliefs that all people should have liberty.

The conservatives and the religious for that matter have had it pretty good. I would really like to know how the government or society is doing that is keeping you from practicing your religion.


(I know this is gonna get flamed but I really don't care so save the effort :rolleyes: In fact ask yourself before you start typing how you would feel if the writings of Marx or whoever you happen to follow were banned from even being mentioned in public forum)

Are you saying they banned the Bible?

Interesting that you mentioned books being banned. You might want to see this list:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

Nor could there be. Labeling a bill as "not subject to judicial oversight" would, in and of itself, render the bill unconstitutional. :)

I agree that this bill, if passed, would be declared unconstitutional, and rightly so.

Makes you kind of think why the Repubs REALLY wanted to have the most conservative of their blocked judges passed doesn't it?

I wonder if they even could shoot it down if they wanted to since it says any judge that tries to strike it down can be impeached. Sounds like a good way to get rid of the more Liberal judges if you ask me.

Liberal judge says "This ain't right!"
Right-wing White House/Senate/Congress says: "Oops! You're impeached!"
Remove 'lefty' judge, replace with conservative. Repeat until dissention mysteriously ends.

Liberal judge says "This ain't right!"
Right-wing White House/Senate/Congress says: "Oops! You're impeached!"
Remove 'lefty' judge, replace with conservative. Repeat until dissention mysteriously ends.
Aren't Republicans smart sometimes? It's amazing how they convinced the public to accept perpetual war and the loss of freedoms. I guess reading 1984 had a different impact on Karl Rove and his other neocon friends at the PNAC than most people's reaction of disgust to the world created in the book.

Makes you kind of think why the Repubs REALLY wanted to have the most conservative of their blocked judges passed doesn't it?

I wonder if they even could shoot it down if they wanted to since it says any judge that tries to strike it down can be impeached. Sounds like a good way to get rid of the more Liberal judges if you ask me.

Liberal judge says "This ain't right!"
Right-wing White House/Senate/Congress says: "Oops! You're impeached!"
Remove 'lefty' judge, replace with conservative. Repeat until dissention mysteriously ends.
Actually, this post makes you kind of wonder what kind of conspiracy theorist crap is going around these days. Did this bill say anything about Christianity being the only religion that was allowed? Not that I saw. Any other religion can apply to this bill. That sounds nothing like a theocracy to me. Maybe if atheism was a religion, you guys would be happy? Or maybe you're just pissed off about anything religious.

Actually, this post makes you kind of wonder what kind of conspiracy theorist crap is going around these days. Did this bill say anything about Christianity being the only religion that was allowed? Not that I saw. Any other religion can apply to this bill. That sounds nothing like a theocracy to me. Maybe if atheism was a religion, you guys would be happy? Or maybe you're just pissed off about anything religious.
Are you actually saying that with a straight face?

Are you actually saying that with a straight face?
Saying which part?

good it's about time.
I'm tired of the courts telling me what I can and cannot publicly believe. Liberals flaunt free speech because it lets them say whatever kind of seditious things about the government they want but if a Christian tries to exercise his right to free speech by professing a belief in God in public then he is at very best ridiculed but more likely he is sued or thrown out of wherever he happens to be. That's freedom of speech for you, thank God for this bill even if it doesn’t pass.
(I know this is gonna get flamed but I really don't care so save the effort :rolleyes: In fact ask yourself before you start typing how you would feel if the writings of Marx or whoever you happen to follow were banned from even being mentioned in public forum)
If you can prove a single instance of where the courts have said that a person cannot publicly state his or her religious beliefs, then I'll retract the following statement--you're too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time. Go ahead--I'll be waiting for the case citation.

Saying which part?
The bit about this having nothing to do with christianity.

The bit about this having nothing to do with christianity.
Actually, I'm not. Nowhere in my post did I say it had nothing to do with Christianity. I said that it's NOT LIMITED to Christianity.

This bill opens it up for any religion. If a jewish president has a painting of the star of david in the oval office, so be it. He's not hurting my feelings.

Actually, this post makes you kind of wonder what kind of conspiracy theorist crap is going around these days. Did this bill say anything about Christianity being the only religion that was allowed? Not that I saw. Any other religion can apply to this bill. That sounds nothing like a theocracy to me. Maybe if atheism was a religion, you guys would be happy? Or maybe you're just pissed off about anything religious.

Are you suggesting that the USA is converting to Hindu or perhaps Islam?

Well that would be one way to end the terrorist attacks.

Are you suggesting that the USA is converting to Hindu or perhaps Islam?

Well that would be one way to end the terrorist attacks.
I'm not suggesting that we're "converting" to anything, because we have no established religion.

Are you saying that no Muslims attack each other? Don't think we're the only country that they're attacking either.

If you can prove a single instance of where the courts have said that a person cannot publicly state his or her religious beliefs, then I'll retract the following statement--you're too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time. Go ahead--I'll be waiting for the case citation.
Well the about a year ago a case where a student was prevented from wording a prayer for a group of like-minded individuals before lunch was in the news and in my own personal experience when I was still in high school and on the quiz bowl team, we went to a public school to compete in an area wide competition. On the door to the lunch room there was a sign stating that the room was reserved for specific hours so that Muslim students could observe the daily prayers. Being curious, because the "seperation of church and state" issue was big at the time, I asked one of the teachers if any such provisions had been made for Christian students and apparently they had but then had been retracted by the school board (local or state I'm not sure) Now it occurs to me that I do live in Arkansas which is one of the more screwed up states in the US so if that is not a common practice outside of this area then I retract my original statement as well. However that has been my experience here.

Well the about a year ago a case where a student was prevented from wording a prayer for a group of like-minded individuals before lunch was in the news and in my own personal experience when I was still in high school and on the quiz bowl team, we went to a public school to compete in an area wide competition. On the door to the lunch room there was a sign stating that the room was reserved for specific hours so that Muslim students could observe the daily prayers. Being curious, because the "seperation of church and state" issue was big at the time, I asked one of the teachers if any such provisions had been made for Christian students and apparently they had but then had been retracted by the school board (local or state I'm not sure) Now it occurs to me that I do live in Arkansas which is one of the more screwed up states in the US so if that is not a common practice outside of this area then I retract my original statement as well. However that has been my experience here.

Do school boards count as government institutions or are the more of an autonomous committee? I think the PTA is like that too.

You could always ask the school boards to give the Christians a room for whatever you may need it for and ask why they decided to not supply one.

Be fair though, muslims need to pray with a fair bit of silence and concentration during certain times of the day so I can imagine why they'd need the room. Christians do really 'need' to do so and it really isn't part of common Christian practices.

I'm not suggesting that we're "converting" to anything, because we have no established religion.

I do think Christianity is the main religion in the USA and has shaped its laws and culture accordingly. Can't get more official than that.


Are you saying that no Muslims attack each other? Don't think we're the only country that they're attacking either.

No. I'm just saying that one of the demands of OBL was to convert the country to Islam. We wouldn't likely have to worry about attacks afterwards. Also, one of the reasons (primary reason, actually) that extremists have targetted other muslim countries would be because they are on friendly terms with the US.

I do think Christianity is the main religion in the USA and has shaped its laws and culture accordingly. Can't get more official than that.

Yes it can get more official than that but the Constitution "does not prohibit nor establish" religion. I'm waiting still waiting for someone to tell me where in this bill it says that it is. So far no one has stepped up to the plate.

No. I'm just saying that one of the demands of OBL was to convert the country to Islam. We wouldn't likely have to worry about attacks afterwards. Also, one of the reasons (primary reason, actually) that extremists have targetted other muslim countries would be because they are on friendly terms with the US.

Ring a ding ding. This is correct. But now here's the rub of the issue. How is OBL handling the election reforms that are now taking place in the Mideast in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait? That can't be sitting well with him because he truly does want a theocracy.

Yes it can get more official than that but the Constitution "does not prohibit nor establish" religion. I'm waiting still waiting for someone to tell me where in this bill it says that it is. So far no one has stepped up to the plate.

If this bill is made law you may have your reason. It all depends on how people will take advantage of it.

The fact it says you can impeach judges that criticize it does not bode well. And the huge push the neocons had for the more conservative judges that the Dems tried to block also doesn't bode well when you think of the retarded bills like this one that some of them are trying to sneak through.


Ring a ding ding. This is correct. But now here's the rub of the issue. How is OBL handling the election reforms that are now taking place in the Mideast in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait? That can't be sitting well with him because he truly does want a theocracy.

Who knows but that's his problem. I'm worried about ours.

I do think Christianity is the main religion in the USA and has shaped its laws and culture accordingly. Can't get more official than that.



No. I'm just saying that one of the demands of OBL was to convert the country to Islam. We wouldn't likely have to worry about attacks afterwards. Also, one of the reasons (primary reason, actually) that extremists have targetted other muslim countries would be because they are on friendly terms with the US.
Oh how funny. It is the left that claims that yes, our laws were shaped by the last 5 of the 10 commandments, but that in no way was that justifying that our country was based on Christianity. While Christianity is supposedly what 80% of the country follows (according to a poll, which is probably the most inaccurate ever taken), it is definitely clear that less than 80% of the people in the US believe that the Bible is wholly true, or follow what it says. I would say that at least 51% of the country (I don't want to hear anything about this number) would have to be active members of a Christian church and believe solely in what Jesus taught for this country to have Christianity as it's main religion.

And if you're talking about Bin Laden, why would anyone listen to what he says? He's obviously not out for the good of the American people

Actually, I'm not. Nowhere in my post did I say it had nothing to do with Christianity. I said that it's NOT LIMITED to Christianity.

This bill opens it up for any religion. If a jewish president has a painting of the star of david in the oval office, so be it. He's not hurting my feelings.
Which would helpfully violate the first amendment.

Oh how funny. It is the left that claims that yes, our laws were shaped by the last 5 of the 10 commandments, but that in no way was that justifying that our country was based on Christianity. While Christianity is supposedly what 80% of the country follows (according to a poll, which is probably the most inaccurate ever taken), it is definitely clear that less than 80% of the people in the US believe that the Bible is wholly true, or follow what it says. I would say that at least 51% of the country (I don't want to hear anything about this number) would have to be active members of a Christian church and believe solely in what Jesus taught for this country to have Christianity as it's main religion.

And if you're talking about Bin Laden, why would anyone listen to what he says? He's obviously not out for the good of the American people
Last five of the 10? Adultry is illegal now? Coveting goods (hint: we call it capitalism) is illegal now?

Besides, murder, theft and perjury have been illegal from dates dating far before the ten commandments. You will have to try harder.

Oh how funny. It is the left that claims that yes, our laws were shaped by the last 5 of the 10 commandments, but that in no way was that justifying that our country was based on Christianity. While Christianity is supposedly what 80% of the country follows (according to a poll, which is probably the most inaccurate ever taken), it is definitely clear that less than 80% of the people in the US believe that the Bible is wholly true, or follow what it says. I would say that at least 51% of the country (I don't want to hear anything about this number) would have to be active members of a Christian church and believe solely in what Jesus taught for this country to have Christianity as it's main religion.

The founders were likely raised christian, grew up around christians, and were making laws FOR christians. Not surprising that the Constitution has a christian feel although it is officially not endorsing any religion.

Today's government is based exactly the same way except the christian segment is more pronounced than it has ever been and now we have bills like this being presented.

BTW Nationmaster says 44% of americans attend church regularly. Make no mistake this country is a big christian base. Probably the most religious G8 nation too.


And if you're talking about Bin Laden, why would anyone listen to what he says? He's obviously not out for the good of the American people

Correct. Everyone in the nation is not going to convert to islam. That's no reason to ignore OBL though :)

And just so you know there are extremists in the US who would like to team up with OBL. They've arrested a guy not long ago for offering to build a bomb for terrorists and the Aryan Nation wants to team up with OBL too.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/schuster.column/index.html

Plenty to be concerned about.

If this bill is made law you may have your reason. It all depends on how people will take advantage of it.

That goes for ALL RELIGIONS! ALL RELIGIONS will be protected by this law. About time Congress decides to back up the 1st Amendment over the Courts.

The fact it says you can impeach judges that criticize it does not bode well. And the huge push the neocons had for the more conservative judges that the Dems tried to block also doesn't bode well when you think of the retarded bills like this one that some of them are trying to sneak through.

Notice the word CAN! Frankly, any judge that violates his oath and or the Constitution deserves to be impeached. There are several Judges that need to be impeached or forced to resign. Most of then over in the 9th Circuit Court if you want my honest opinion. Anyway..... what is wrong with Bush's judges? Are they unqualified to serve? Do you know that they ALL have come highly recommended by the American Bar? Did you know that their own people WANT these judges on the bench? Hell, 2 of them were overwhelming elected to their State Supreme Courts. That should tell you something about those people right there.

Who knows but that's his problem. I'm worried about ours.

My problem is that the courts are eliminating christianity from public life while allowing Jews and Muslims to practice openly. I don't know about you but to me, that's a clear violation of MY 1st Amendment Rights.

May GOD be with you.

That goes for ALL RELIGIONS! ALL RELIGIONS will be protected by this law. About time Congress decides to back up the 1st Amendment over the Courts.

All religions ARE ALREADY protected under the law. This bill will give too much political power to religious groups and violate seperation of church and state in a big way.


Notice the word CAN!

Yes it will give reason to impeach judges if they decide to challenge the constitutional validity of this very law (when it becomes one). That's just nuts.


Frankly, any judge that violates his oath and or the Constitution deserves to be impeached.

They will be impeached for NOT VIOLATING the constitution. They could be impeached for saying it is unconstitutional.


There are several Judges that need to be impeached or forced to resign. Most of then over in the 9th Circuit Court if you want my honest opinion.

Feel free to elaborate.

From

http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-ninth-circuit

The court is considered by some to have an overly liberal bias, but some people disagree. 17 judges on the court have been appointed by Democratic presidents and 10 have been appointed by Republican presidents, but liberal judges are often appointed by conservative presidents, and vice-versa, so the composition is subject to varying interpretation.

Also:

In 2002, it made one of its most controversial decisions to date in the case of Newdow v. United States Congress. The court ruled that encouraging public school students to recite a pledge which includes the phrase "under God" (the Pledge of Allegiance) violated the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion. The decision was penned for the majority by Nixon appointee Alfred T. Goodwin, one of the senior status (semi-retired) judges on the court. The Supreme Court overturned this decision on June 14, 2004, because the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, lacked legal standing to bring suit. The Court did not address the constitutionality of the pledge.


Anyway..... what is wrong with Bush's judges? Are they unqualified to serve? Do you know that they ALL have come highly recommended by the American Bar? Did you know that their own people WANT these judges on the bench? Hell, 2 of them were overwhelming elected to their State Supreme Courts. That should tell you something about those people right there.

The very reason they wanted these extremeist judges to get the okay is so the conservatives could pass this constitution-destroying bill and make it law.


My problem is that the courts are eliminating christianity from public life while allowing Jews and Muslims to practice openly. I don't know about you but to me, that's a clear violation of MY 1st Amendment Rights.

May GOD be with you.

So the government is closing down churches?

The only times I've seen the courts act against Christians was when they'd try to bridge the necessary gap between church and state or when they tried to enforce their moral POV on others through unconstitutional law-passing.

I do think you can still practice Christianity, wear crosses in public and even sport manger scenes on your own property.

Correct. Everyone in the nation is not going to convert to islam. That's no reason to ignore OBL though :)

And just so you know there are extremists in the US who would like to team up with OBL. They've arrested a guy not long ago for offering to build a bomb for terrorists and the Aryan Nation wants to team up with OBL too.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/schuster.column/index.html

Plenty to be concerned about.
I didn't mean that he was nothing to be concerned about. I meant that when he suggests ways that Americans should conduct business (their faith, who to vote for), no one should listen to him. He isn't looking out for our best interests.

As for the Aryan Nation, when did they start wanting to associate with non-whites?

I think it challenges the principle of seperating the justice sytem, from the legsaletive and executive bodies. It threatens the members of the jusdical body with..
(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction;
Then it also issue that international laws like those of the geneva convention does not apply in american courts, no judge should refer to such conventions.

I don't think I've talked much about the bill so far, so I wanted to make it clear.

If they got rid of the impeachment and no international laws thing, it'd be a half decent bill.

I didn't mean that he was nothing to be concerned about. I meant that when he suggests ways that Americans should conduct business (their faith, who to vote for), no one should listen to him. He isn't looking out for our best interests.

As for the Aryan Nation, when did they start wanting to associate with non-whites?

Don't fret. We shouldn't let the extremists run the show no matter what form they take.

Still, as I said with the Aryan Nation we have a serious problem growing. It really is not surprising that they want to team up. Terrorist groups constantly share info on how to be bastards even if they have no shared interests.

The US is a white, christian domain, not a muslim one. Seems to reason that the terrorist group to be most worried about would reflect the region's cultural makeup. Al Queda is unique in this regard because although most terrorist groups act locally, these guys are global.

The KKK comes to mind. White pride groups have always been a terrorist threat in this country.

I don't think I've talked much about the bill so far, so I wanted to make it clear.

If they got rid of the impeachment and no international laws thing, it'd be a half decent bill.

I gotta read the bit about the english laws. I freaked at the impeachment and didn't read much further. :p

I wonder what the implications are.

I think it challenges the principle of seperating the justice sytem, from the legsaletive and executive bodies. It threatens the members of the jusdical body with..
(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction;
Then it also issue that international laws like those of the geneva convention does not apply in american courts, no judge should refer to such conventions.

No bill or law should make it an impeachable offense to examine it's constitutional validity. You can't get any more undemocratic than being punished for criticising the government.

Judges should only be impeached for gross ineptitude and lack of professionalism.

did anyone actually read the bill and compare it to the remarks made in the article? This is atrocious misuse of information! look at these two quotes:

First from the article: "If passed, the bill also would limit the ability of judges to interpret the Constitution if it involved "any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States." "

Now from the actual bill : "In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States."

Basically, the writer of this article misused a quote from the text of the article! Look at the wording of the bill- all it says is that judges can't interpret the constitution with any other law dating before the constitution except English Common law. What's so restricting about that?

Now for the "Controversial" part: "`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 entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'"

Read this slowly and carefully-notice it has nothing to do with turning the aspects of government around, just that judges cannot review a federal agent's belief of God as his creator. What's bad about that?

The fact of the matter is, this "website" is a disgrace filled with lies and slander. Do not believe a word of it. Just look at the other headlines on their homepage, and I think you'll agree.
I agree except for the "entity" part. That leaves it open to agencies being allowed to endorse religions. The part about officers and agents is fine. My concern is when they start saying that agencies themselves can do this stuff.

It's a hoax:

"We didn't find any Web pages matching the following criteria:
Restricted to .gov domain/site(s)
Containing this query term: "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005""
find law is a legitimate source.

All I know is that Yahoo can't find any .gov sites which contain the phrase: "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005." Perhaps their database is in need of updating. ( shrug )
I never use Yahoo. Every time you use their search, you end being taken to a site that has mostly all advertising links.

I've started reading the comments on Fark.com where I found the link

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1514332

This guy makes an interesting point:

mediaho [TotalFark]

Of course inevitably judging it unconstitutional will also make them shout "activist judges" even louder.

Gawd the language in this bill is puzzling!

Do school boards count as government institutions or are the more of an autonomous committee? I think the PTA is like that too.

You could always ask the school boards to give the Christians a room for whatever you may need it for and ask why they decided to not supply one.

Be fair though, muslims need to pray with a fair bit of silence and concentration during certain times of the day so I can imagine why they'd need the room. Christians do really 'need' to do so and it really isn't part of common Christian practices.
A school board is a government agency. Schools are branches of the state government as are cities.

A school board is a government agency. Schools are branches of the state government as are cities.

Good. Hopefully that will make things easier since government groups are a bit more liberal than private ones. It's wrong to set school policy and courseload to religious beliefs but letting your students express themselves shouldn't be banned.

As long as they keep it clean ;)

I've started reading the comments on Fark.com where I found the link

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1514332

This guy makes an interesting point:



Gawd the language in this bill is puzzling!

Seemed pretty straight forward to me. But then, its probably because I'm in the process of studying this crap.

Anyway, to me, this bill in no way violates anything and before you say anything Upitatanium, no judge can be impeached if they follow the Constitution.

This Congress finally has the balls to finally place limits on what the court can and cannot do. That can be both good and bad as someone said earlier. Frankly, Im hoping it passes.

Seemed pretty straight forward to me. But then, its probably because I'm in the process of studying this crap.

Anyway, to me, this bill in no way violates anything and before you say anything Upitatanium, no judge can be impeached if they follow the Constitution.

This Congress finally has the balls to finally place limits on what the court can and cannot do. That can be both good and bad as someone said earlier. Frankly, Im hoping it passes.
How about a nice friendly bet?

If this bill passes, and no judge gets impeached on the grounds of 'violating' the first amendment (and if you think that a bunch of lawmakers know more about the law then countless numbers of judges and courts, you're a very sorry person), I'll give you 10$. However, if judges are, you have to find a way to get me out of the country and have a Swedish passport.

How about a nice friendly bet?

If this bill passes, and no judge gets impeached on the grounds of 'violating' the first amendment (and if you think that a bunch of lawmakers know more about the law then countless numbers of judges and courts, you're a very sorry person), I'll give you 10$. However, if judges are, you have to find a way to get me out of the country and have a Swedish passport.

LOL!!!

Sorry dude but it goes against my morals to gamble! :D :p

Anyway, if judges do violate the 1st amendment (and it has been violated) they should be tossed out on their ears.

Seemed pretty straight forward to me. But then, its probably because I'm in the process of studying this crap.

Anyway, to me, this bill in no way violates anything and before you say anything Upitatanium, no judge can be impeached if they follow the Constitution.

This Congress finally has the balls to finally place limits on what the court can and cannot do. That can be both good and bad as someone said earlier. Frankly, Im hoping it passes.

Until this law gets declared unconstitutional because it interferes with the Judicial power of the courts. While they may no longer be bound by such precedents as their overturning of the "legislative veto," on the grounds that it allowed congress to mimic an executive function, the bill does not actually prohibit them from voluntarily adhering to the precedent. And since they'll have overturned it by then, it can't be used as a basis to prosecute them.

Until this law gets declared unconstitutional because it interferes with the Judicial power of the courts. While they may no longer be bound by such precedents as their overturning of the "legislative veto," on the grounds that it allowed congress to mimic an executive function, the bill does not actually prohibit them from voluntarily adhering to the precedent. And since they'll have overturned it by then, it can't be used as a basis to prosecute them.

I don't see how this can get overturned. Besides that, it is up to the Congress to check the power that the Courts have. Its that little thing called checks and balances. Remember that from American Government?

Anyway, the President and Congress of the Obligation to make sure that the Judiciary doesn't overstep its bounds. It upto the Judiciary to make sure that the President and Congress don't overstep their bounds. The Courts have overstepped their bounds and now the Congress is restoring the balance of power.

As for the Veto, did you know that is in the Constitution of the United States? The Congress can at anytime override a Presidential Veto. As for the President, did you know that he can commute a sentence? Pardon someone? He can do both of those things. Just like a Governor can.

Now that we've gone through American Government 101, I have read the bill twice and see nothing to suggest that this should be overturned.

Until this law gets declared unconstitutional because it interferes with the Judicial power of the courts. While they may no longer be bound by such precedents as their overturning of the "legislative veto," on the grounds that it allowed congress to mimic an executive function, the bill does not actually prohibit them from voluntarily adhering to the precedent. And since they'll have overturned it by then, it can't be used as a basis to prosecute them.Yeah, all theoretical arguments aside, no judge is going to let the legislature tell him what he can or can't declare unconstitutional. The reasoning may be shaky, but it'll stand up all the way to the Supremes, because we're talking about a turf war at heart here, and even Tony Scalia knows better than to cede that kind of ground.

I don't see how this can get overturned. Besides that, it is up to the Congress to check the power that the Courts have. Its that little thing called checks and balances. Remember that from American Government?

Anyway, the President and Congress of the Obligation to make sure that the Judiciary doesn't overstep its bounds. It upto the Judiciary to make sure that the President and Congress don't overstep their bounds. The Courts have overstepped their bounds and now the Congress is restoring the balance of power.

As for the Veto, did you know that is in the Constitution of the United States? The Congress can at anytime override a Presidential Veto. As for the President, did you know that he can commute a sentence? Pardon someone? He can do both of those things. Just like a Governor can.

Now that we've gone through American Government 101, I have read the bill twice and see nothing to suggest that this should be overturned.

What you described above is not the legeslative veto. The legislative veto was a practice that congress briefly enjoyed in which they would vote that the president shouldn't keep doing something that he was doing, and that he was expected to then stop it. The courts ruled that that was Congress overstepping its bounds. The courts could just as easily rule that congress is overstepping its bounds with this bill. As for the grounds, that bit about recognizing God as the source of liberty bla bla bla. All the court has to say is that its authority comes from the constitution, therefore to affirm the courts lack of a right to contradict those who say that their authority comes from God is unconstitutional. In this case actually bereft of constitutionality as opposed to the more typical contradiction of the Constitution.

Good. Hopefully that will make things easier since government groups are a bit more liberal than private ones. It's wrong to set school policy and courseload to religious beliefs but letting your students express themselves shouldn't be banned.

As long as they keep it clean ;)
I agree.

What you described above is not the legeslative veto. The legislative veto was a practice that congress briefly enjoyed in which they would vote that the president shouldn't keep doing something that he was doing, and that he was expected to then stop it. The courts ruled that that was Congress overstepping its bounds. The courts could just as easily rule that congress is overstepping its bounds with this bill. As for the grounds, that bit about recognizing God as the source of liberty bla bla bla. All the court has to say is that its authority comes from the constitution, therefore to affirm the courts lack of a right to contradict those who say that their authority comes from God is unconstitutional. In this case actually bereft of constitutionality as opposed to the more typical contradiction of the Constitution.
Actually the Constitution no where gives the courts that power. The constitution actually, leaves it to Congress to decide what the courts have jurisdiction over. The reason courts have power to determine if something is constitutional is because the Congress gave them that power.

Actually the Constitution no where gives the courts that power. The constitution actually, leaves it to Congress to decide what the courts have jurisdiction over. The reason courts have power to determine if something is constitutional is because the Congress gave them that power.

You are absolutely correct Whittier--! Because they have that power and that its in the Constitution of the United States, this has no choice but to be upheld otherwise you'll have to go through the Constitutional Process to eliminate the Congress' right to limit what the Courts can hear.

US Constitution

Article 3:

Section. 1.

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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 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. 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.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


As you can see, the constitution nowhere states that the courts have power to interpret the constitution. The only way that the court could still look at an issue if the Congress strips them of review over such issue, would be if the case involves the state.