Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Sandy · Mar 19, 2004, 11:54 am

My latest project:

Pat Robertson wrote the original draft of this bill and with that in mind, I would like some input on the contents of the bill. Take note of Section 1260. Matters not reviewable. It’s only one paragraph but says it all as to Bush’s plan for all of us.

108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 3799
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 11, 2004
Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself and Mr. PENCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2004'.
TITLE I--JURISDICTION
SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL-
(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable
`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.'.
(2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`1260. Matters not reviewable.'.
(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL-
(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:
`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district court shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'.
(2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'.
(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--INTERPRETATION
SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
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 the constitutional law and English common law.
TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.
Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.
SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.
To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--
(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and
(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.
END

Suburbanite · Mar 19, 2004, 02:00 pm

Pat Robertson sees the constitution, the Judges who sometimes uphold it, and the mentality of Europe to be big threads to his goal of religious hegemony. I think this act is pathetic to be honest. Pat Robertson has not once showed anyone but his own interests at heart and here he is again doing just that. He and his ilk are really making a push for the 3rd great awakening, and frankly I am not willing to lie down and let it happen. It made me smile that throughout most of the 90's people who believed in God evangelically were called Whack Jobs and lunatics. Now people like Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson can make it on TV and no one is laughing? What has happened here?

peace_hawk · Mar 19, 2004, 08:07 pm

You might enjoy "Founding Faith" http://www.brotherdan.com/page3.html Brother Dan doesn't seem to be your typical "evangelical." He thinks Xity is right but is opposed to the Enlightenment and the Christiandom that preceeded it.

Sandy · Mar 20, 2004, 07:56 am

We are talking about a probable Constitution Amendment here. I have no interest in slamming Christianity but for heaven's sake let's keep the Government out of this mess. this Bill should never make the house or senate.

I came across a memo written when Bush 41 was questioned about this action when it first appeared in 1987. Senior Bush made the statement that "Atheists are not citizens or patriots"

This bill was tabled and didn't return until the Christian Coalition promised Bush 43 all their votes of this bill would be returned to the house and senate.

I have emailed my Congressman and both of my Senators to knock this damn thing down again!!!

CJFreeman · Mar 25, 2004, 08:57 am

If It Concerns You:

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)
Pat Robertson sees the constitution, the Judges who sometimes uphold it, and the mentality of Europe to be big threads to his goal of religious hegemony. I think this act is pathetic to be honest. Pat Robertson has not once showed anyone but his own interests at heart and here he is again doing just that. He and his ilk are really making a push for the 3rd great awakening, and frankly I am not willing to lie down and let it happen. It made me smile that throughout most of the 90's people who believed in God evangelically were called Whack Jobs and lunatics. Now people like Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson can make it on TV and no one is laughing? What has happened here?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

To be short, there is an ocean of difference between pop-culture televangelists, who try to stir their congregations into some emotional frenzy and call it the movements of God, and those like Mel Gibson who are very conservative, well-educated laity. Not to mention, it is egregious to judge Christianity by its television appearance while not looking into the historical orthodoxy and orthopraxy that has rooted it so firmly through the world.

Rev. Christopher J. Freeman

Mar 25, 2004, 09:59 pm

You guys are reading too much into this bill. I don't like Pat Robertson anymore than you do but this bill does not open the door to any sort of theocracy. All it says is that no member of the government can be sued for having a belief in God and saying so. The ACLU has been romping all over the country suing schools and municipalities for having the word Christmas, a legal holiday signed into law by Pres Grant, on their calenders.
The second part of this bill simply states that foreign laws shall have no authority in US courts. I think this is a very important step to take. We REALLY don't want precedents started by Norway or France in our legal lexicon.
Read it again.

Mar 19, 2004, 08:07 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
peace_hawk Molten Ash Location: Wisconsin USA Posts: 73	You might enjoy "Founding Faith" http://www.brotherdan.com/page3.html Brother Dan doesn't seem to be your typical "evangelical." He thinks Xity is right but is opposed to the Enlightenment and the Christiandom that preceeded it. "What you call facts depends upon the theory you bring to it." - A. Einstein Brother Dan.com

Mar 19, 2004, 11:54 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Sandy Igneous Magma Posts: 239	My latest project: Pat Robertson wrote the original draft of this bill and with that in mind, I would like some input on the contents of the bill. Take note of Section 1260. Matters not reviewable. It’s only one paragraph but says it all as to Bush’s plan for all of us. 108th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 3799 To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 11, 2004 Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself and Mr. PENCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2004'. TITLE I--JURISDICTION SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. (a) IN GENERAL- (1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable `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.'. (2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `1260. Matters not reviewable.'. (b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION. (a) IN GENERAL- (1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following: `Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review `Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district court shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'. (2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'. (b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act. TITLE II--INTERPRETATION SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 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 the constitutional law and English common law. TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES. Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court. SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES. To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of-- (1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and (2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution. END

Mar 19, 2004, 02:00 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	Pat Robertson sees the constitution, the Judges who sometimes uphold it, and the mentality of Europe to be big threads to his goal of religious hegemony. I think this act is pathetic to be honest. Pat Robertson has not once showed anyone but his own interests at heart and here he is again doing just that. He and his ilk are really making a push for the 3rd great awakening, and frankly I am not willing to lie down and let it happen. It made me smile that throughout most of the 90's people who believed in God evangelically were called Whack Jobs and lunatics. Now people like Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson can make it on TV and no one is laughing? What has happened here?

Mar 20, 2004, 07:56 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Sandy Igneous Magma Posts: 239	We are talking about a probable Constitution Amendment here. I have no interest in slamming Christianity but for heaven's sake let's keep the Government out of this mess. this Bill should never make the house or senate. I came across a memo written when Bush 41 was questioned about this action when it first appeared in 1987. Senior Bush made the statement that "Atheists are not citizens or patriots" This bill was tabled and didn't return until the Christian Coalition promised Bush 43 all their votes of this bill would be returned to the house and senate. I have emailed my Congressman and both of my Senators to knock this damn thing down again!!!

Mar 25, 2004, 08:57 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
CJFreeman Igneous Magma Posts: 223	If It Concerns You: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,) Pat Robertson sees the constitution, the Judges who sometimes uphold it, and the mentality of Europe to be big threads to his goal of religious hegemony. I think this act is pathetic to be honest. Pat Robertson has not once showed anyone but his own interests at heart and here he is again doing just that. He and his ilk are really making a push for the 3rd great awakening, and frankly I am not willing to lie down and let it happen. It made me smile that throughout most of the 90's people who believed in God evangelically were called Whack Jobs and lunatics. Now people like Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson can make it on TV and no one is laughing? What has happened here?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> To be short, there is an ocean of difference between pop-culture televangelists, who try to stir their congregations into some emotional frenzy and call it the movements of God, and those like Mel Gibson who are very conservative, well-educated laity. Not to mention, it is egregious to judge Christianity by its television appearance while not looking into the historical orthodoxy and orthopraxy that has rooted it so firmly through the world. Rev. Christopher J. Freeman

Mar 25, 2004, 09:59 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	You guys are reading too much into this bill. I don't like Pat Robertson anymore than you do but this bill does not open the door to any sort of theocracy. All it says is that no member of the government can be sued for having a belief in God and saying so. The ACLU has been romping all over the country suing schools and municipalities for having the word Christmas, a legal holiday signed into law by Pres Grant, on their calenders. The second part of this bill simply states that foreign laws shall have no authority in US courts. I think this is a very important step to take. We REALLY don't want precedents started by Norway or France in our legal lexicon. Read it again.