New Dominionist Bill Limits the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction

[Zhade]

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

By Katherine Yurica

February 19, 2004

<SNIP>

Today the Yurica Report learned that on February 11 , 2004 Dominionist leaders in congress made their move; they introduced a bill in both houses called The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004. Among the sponsors of the bill are Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

The House version is H.R. 3799 and the Senate version is S. 2082. The bill limits the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts to hear cases involving “expressions of religious faith by elected or appointed officials.”

Although the claim by its sponsors appears to be that the intention is to prevent the courts from hearing cases involving the Ten Commandments or a Nativity Scene in a public setting from being reviewed, the law is drawn broadly and expressly includes the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of executing his office. John Giles, Alabama President of Christian Coalition said, "The greatest unbridled abuse by the federal judiciary for over forty years has been in the area of redefining the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law...We define this as judicial activism, making law from the bench. These unconstitutional rulings have gone unchecked by other branches of government."

<SNIP>

Because the judiciary is “an element” of the federal, state and local governments, this wording, if it becomes law, may allow any judge to institute biblical punishments without being subject to review by the Supreme Court or the federal court system.

In addition the proposed bill punishes sitting judges by requiring impeachment and removal, if they rely on decisions from another state or jurisdiction, such as another state’s constitution, law, administrative rule or judicial decision. The proposed Section 201, “Interpretation of the Constitution” reads:

“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.”

Because the term “foreign” is a term of art in the law and can refer to another jurisdiction within the United States, like another state or another county, the proposed law is troubling. One news talk show host in favor of the bill claims that the section is aimed directly at Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Conner and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

(Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong, but doesn't this make the idea of legal precedents a dead one, if this passes?)

[BR_Parkway]

1. Even worse, look what they want to do to previous decisions

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.

That one clears the slate of anything regarding school prayer, money and/or preferential treatment to certain faith bases causes, basically any rulings that have ever been made that involve religion.

[Dookus]

2. it's all based on an untested constitutional issue

namely Article III, Section 2, which in part says:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The question is whether this clause means congress can limit the Court's jurisdiction on any issue. It seems unlikely, and furthermore, it seems unlikely the court would uphold such a limitation on its powers, especially in light of Marbury v Madison.

As far as I know, congress has never tried to do this. I believe the court would slap them down for trying in a New York minute. The potential outcome of such a situation would be horrendous - we could have different operating laws regarding constitutional rights for different district or appellate court jurisdictions, with no way to resolve them.

I think there is no chance for this clause to be upheld in the way the Dominionists think it should be applied.

[Zhade]

3. I do hope you're right.

With the criminal gang in power, nothing's sacred. We must get these guys out of the White House, as soon as we can.

Here's hoping November does it!

[Dookus]

4. well it will never even get to the court

The idea itself is so offensive to people on all sides of the political spectrum. Even conservatives realize that if this were to be upheld, a simple Democratic majority in both houses could take advantage of it, too. How 'bout outlawing handguns altogether, and then saying the Court can't decide on the issue?

It would basically open the door to doing away altogether with the SC's appellate duties - with is the vast majority of what the court does.

[scarletlib]

6. Ding! Ding! Ding!

You win the prize. In the early days of the Republic, the president tried to limit supreme court/court powers and the court overruled him.

This could only work if the court complicitly accepted this as law.

[Hammie]

5. Don't worry...

Even if it passes the Supreme Court will just rule it unconstitutional.

[Moderator]

7. Zhade

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you


DU Moderator

[Zhade]

8. Ah, my bad. For some reason, I thought that only applied to LBN.

I will remember this rule for the future. Sorry about that!