What d'y'all think of the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004?"

**Tock** · 03-17-2004, 07:16 AM

Apparantly the Russians are laughing at us for this little jewel . . . it says,

http://www.rfcnet.org/news/default.a...=197&category=

-----------------
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.'.
-----------

Pretty much, this means that the Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court) would not be allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws involving religion. So, if Congress, or the legislature of any state, passed a law saying that since the Old Testament called for the death penalty for adultery, then to defend the Holy State of Matrimony in the US, adulterers would be put to death. Or they could justify death to gays based on what God said in the Old Testament, and the federal courts could not intervene.

What do y'all make of that? It's exactly what the Christian Right has been wanting for years . . .

-Tock

**Mart651** · 03-17-2004, 07:52 AM

I have been waiting for this a long time. I have been cleaning my guns everyday. When exactly does this go into affect. I have a list of people I want to shoot.

Originally Posted by Tock

Apparantly the Russians are laughing at us for this little jewel . . . it says,

http://www.rfcnet.org/news/default.a...=197&category=

-----------------
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.'.
-----------

Pretty much, this means that the Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court) would not be allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws involving religion. So, if Congress, or the legislature of any state, passed a law saying that since the Old Testament called for the death penalty for adultery, then to defend the Holy State of Matrimony in the US, adulterers would be put to death. Or they could justify death to gays based on what God said in the Old Testament, and the federal courts could not intervene.

What do y'all make of that? It's exactly what the Christian Right has been wanting for years . . .

-Tock

**Dude-Man** · 03-17-2004, 08:59 AM

well, i guess that would mean "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" would be law as well. Who's ready for bedlum?

**Animal Cracker** · 03-17-2004, 10:01 AM

It is attempting to limit Absolute/Judicial/Qualified Immuities of certain profession..it is to limit tort liability provided for in USC 1983..which are not acts or laws, but doctrines. Most states already do not honor these doctrines..the feds however adhere to soverign(absolute) immunity. However for judges..right, wrong or indifferent...as long as he has subject matter jurisdiction..he is clear from any liability or sanction.

**JohnDoe1234** · 03-17-2004, 10:05 AM

what exactly does that mean Bamma?. Does that mean this act is not what Tock thinks it is?.

**Animal Cracker** · 03-17-2004, 10:28 AM

For the average joe..means squat. for judges, proby-officers..means clean up your act.

**Animal Cracker** · 03-17-2004, 10:30 AM

Besides it is just a bill...not law..not policy..thousands of bills are introduced..90% never pass muster.

**Tock** · 03-17-2004, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by BamaSlamma

It is attempting to limit Absolute/Judicial/Qualified Immuities of certain profession..it is to limit tort liability provided for in USC 1983..which are not acts or laws, but doctrines. Most states already do not honor these doctrines..the feds however adhere to soverign(absolute) immunity. However for judges..right, wrong or indifferent...as long as he has subject matter jurisdiction..he is clear from any liability or sanction.

Oh, pidgesquattle . . . where does it say it has anything to do with tort liability? It's all about preventing the Supreme Court from ruling against prayer in school, posting the 10 commandments on public property, and against any law that is based on religion.

Here's an abbreviated form, to make it a bit more readable:

. . . the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, . . . any matter . . . sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, . . . by reason of that element's . . . acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

-Tock

**Mart651** · 03-17-2004, 10:35 AM

Sounds like freedom of speech is being restored.

Originally Posted by Tock

Oh, pidgesquattle . . . where does it say it has anything to do with tort liability? It's all about preventing the Supreme Court from ruling against prayer in school, posting the 10 commandments on public property, and against any law that is based on religion.

Here's an abbreviated form, to make it a bit more readable:

. . . the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, . . . any matter . . . sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, . . . by reason of that element's . . . acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

-Tock

**Tock** · 03-17-2004, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by mart651

Sounds like freedom of speech is being restored.

No, more like Fundamentalist Christians doing in the US what Fundamentalist Muslims did in Iran.

--Tock

**Mart651** · 03-17-2004, 10:41 AM

Bull ****. Its ok to put some crap about zuess and different fake gods in a court but we can not have the ten commandments.

Originally Posted by Tock

No, more like Fundamentalist Christians doing in the US what Fundamentalist Muslims did in Iran.

--Tock

**Animal Cracker** · 03-17-2004, 10:49 AM

Besides..let the Russians laugh..jobless bastards.

**Animal Cracker** · 03-17-2004, 10:51 AM

<H3>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.
- -
- sums up changes to presently practiced and much enjoyed immunities by judges and other personnel.

</H3>

**Tock** · 03-17-2004, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by mart651

Bull ****. Its ok to put some crap about zuess and different fake gods in a court but we can not have the ten commandments.

Nope.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it's ok to display the 10 Commandments along with historical excerpts from other legal systems (Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, etc) as a historical display of what current law comes from.

The Judge in Alabama ran afoul of the Supreme Court because he would not allow any other excerpts from any other legal systems to be displayed, so the S. Court ruled that it was primarily a sectarian religious display, and said it had to go.

Let me ask you this . . . I suppose you support having the 10 Commandments posted in public places. Do you have a copy posted in your house/apartment (and I don't mean in the bible)?
And do you even know what the 10 Commandments are--can you recite them?

--Tock

**Animal Cracker** · 03-17-2004, 10:53 AM

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.

Introduced to limit "doctrines" that are enjoyed by judges and other court and gov't personnel..which is based on archaic English common law..not the US Constitution.

**Animal Cracker** · 03-17-2004, 10:59 AM

This bill also keeps US law solely as case precednet..and for bids the use of laws of other places like Scandanavian law and Canadian law..which is often used in court cases involving drugs..sex crimes..and gay rights.

**Animal Cracker** · 03-17-2004, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

Oh,

. . . the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, . . . any matter . . . sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, . . . by reason of that element's . . . acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

-Tock

No more lawyers and politicans...just priests and ministers! I doubt that is this bills intent.

**Tock** · 03-17-2004, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by BamaSlamma

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.

Introduced to limit "doctrines" that are enjoyed by judges and other court and gov't personnel..which is based on archaic English common law..not the US Constitution.

Oh yah, this is another part of their proposed law that would make it illegal for a judge to consider something like an international treaty or NATO treaty or agreements entered into by the State Department with foreign nations.
So, if a foreign company tried to sue an American company for not following through on a contract, only US law would apply, not any trade rules that the gov't had established in something like NAFTA. It won't take long before US exports drop to nothing, since no one will want to do business with Americans bound to play only by US rules.

It's a bald-faced attempt for one branch of the government to control another. Bad idea, IMHO. Each of the 3 branches need to be completely independant, so the power of any one of them doesn't become too great.
But these gd Conservatives don't give a flying f*** about great constitutional issues like "Seperation of Powers." All they want is to make laws that will make everyone abide by their interpretation of the gd Bible.

--Tock

**Mart651** · 03-17-2004, 11:13 AM

Yes I can quote the ten commandments. No i do not have it up at work. I do at home. I have a bible on my desk. Would you like me to read them to you?
I can quote the cothlic version or the version from my bible.

Originally Posted by Tock

Nope.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it's ok to display the 10 Commandments along with historical excerpts from other legal systems (Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, etc) as a historical display of what current law comes from.

The Judge in Alabama ran afoul of the Supreme Court because he would not allow any other excerpts from any other legal systems to be displayed, so the S. Court ruled that it was primarily a sectarian religious display, and said it had to go.

Let me ask you this . . . I suppose you support having the 10 Commandments posted in public places. Do you have a copy posted in your house/apartment (and I don't mean in the bible)?
And do you even know what the 10 Commandments are--can you recite them?

--Tock

**Tock** · 03-17-2004, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by BamaSlamma

No more lawyers and politicans...just priests and ministers! I doubt that is this bills intent.

Think of a Fundamentalist Christian version of Iran. That is what these idiots are working for.
Have you never heard about "Christian Reconstructionists?" Do a Yahoo search on this . . . there's lots of 'em around, it's scary how they want to change this country.
--Tock

**Animal Cracker** · 03-17-2004, 11:18 AM

The federal judiciary would be prohibited from interfering with any expression of religious faith by any elected local, state, or federal official. In other words, federal judges could not prevent the Ten Commandments from being displayed in public buildings or Nativity Scenes from appearing on court house lawns or "under God" from being recited in the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers being spoken in public schools, etc. This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts in these matters.. Returns power back to states..In reality this changes little..prayer was allowed in school while I was a student..the state administed oaths when people accepted positions, took the witness stand, said prayer before football games..had Chritmas parties...this really doesnt change much for Americans..for sodomites, commies, soccer-moms with too much free time, it just gives them more to whine about.
Government officals will look at this bill one way..conspiracy theorists, and those who seek to destroy American society..will see it a different way. Just puts things back the way they were in the 1950's! Not bad! LETS ALL DO A GROUP PRAYER THAT IT PASSES!

**Tock** · 03-17-2004, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by mart651

Yes I can quote the ten commandments. No i do not have it up at work. I do at home. I have a bible on my desk. Would you like me to read them to you?
I can quote the cothlic version or the version from my bible.

Yah, well, if you can quote all 10 Commandments, you're in the 4% of the US population who can.

Try this interesting little exercise . . .
Quote all 10, then explain why each one should be made into US law. Or, if you think any of them should not be made into law, explain why not.

Yah, this should be interesting . . .
--Tock

**chicamahomico** · 03-17-2004, 11:27 AM

Religious yahoo's of any kind are not a good thing in a political context IMO. You southerners should do what de did up here in Canada and simply ban the wankers from apllying their crackpot beliefs in public policy. Religion is great if its your religion, so I politely thank you for having the courstey not to share your belifs with me.

**Carlos_E** · 03-17-2004, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by chicamahomico

Religious yahoo's of any kind are not a good thing in a political context IMO. You southerners should do what de did up here in Canada and simply ban the wankers from apllying their crackpot beliefs in public policy. Religion is great if its your religion, so I politely thank you for having the courstey not to share your belifs with me.

**mfenske** · 03-17-2004, 04:21 PM

What I always find humorous is when people want to put god back in schools, government, etc is that one of the main reasons that this nation was formed was freedom of religion (or lack thereof). Wouldn't setting laws based on one religion kinda defy some of the things this great country of ours was founded on? Mark

**Dude-Man** · 03-17-2004, 04:22 PM

ONE: I am the lord God, and you shall have no other gods before Me.

Should not be law

TWO: You shall not make for yourself an idol--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Should not be law

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

should not be law

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

should not be law

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

should not be law

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

Should be and is law

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

isn't law, but should be. I think that because marriages give the couple legal benefits, they should be ticketed or imprisoned for having extra marital affairs.

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

should be and is law

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

Should be and is law. Purgery, etc.

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Nope.

**mfenske** · 03-17-2004, 04:35 PM

After seeing Chris' reply I am reminded of George Carlin's version. He shortened it to two and they went something like "Thou shalt not cheat on the one who gives you nookie" and "Thou shalt try really, really hard not to kill anyone, unless of course he worships a different invisible man than you". Mark

**Tock** · 03-17-2004, 08:28 PM

MART651--especially for you . . .

Originally Posted by chrisAdams

ONE: I am the lord God, and you shall have no other gods before Me.

1) Should not be law

TWO: You shall not make for yourself an idol--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Should not be law

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

should not be law

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

should not be law

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

should not be law

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

Should be and is law

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

isn't law, but should be. I think that because marriages give the couple legal benefits, they should be ticketed or imprisoned for having extra marital affairs.

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

should be and is law

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

Should be and is law. Purgery, etc.

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Nope.

Well done, Chris! We'll make you an "Honorary Freethinker for a Day" if you aren't one already . . .

1) This commandment prevents Bhuddists, Muslims, etc from practicing their religion.
2) This commandment prohibits images like magazine pix, the portraits on your $10 bill, TV screens, etc.
3) God**** right . . . no sense in making non-bleevers not curse.
4) They used to have much stronger "Blue Laws" than what they have now, and its sole function was to enforce the Sabbath commandment. Screw that . . . When I want a slurpee at 7-11, I ain't gonna let no stupid bible scripture keep me from it . . .
5) It's a good idea, but it should work both ways, but often doesn't. No way should a kid who had been locked up in a mobile home closet for 12 years have to honor his parents.
6) Murder -- of course not.
7) Adultery--violating marriage vows is a civil thing, IMHO should be settled thusly. In Old Testament times, women were put to death, men could buy their way out of a death sentence.
8) Stealing -- of course not.
9) Bearing false witness -- again, of course not. I see it done every day, though, by right-wing fundamentalists dead set on sullying the reputation of gays and lesbians. Used to be, they'd bleat how "Gays recruited young children because they could not reproduce" (a lie), nowadays they videotape the geekiest flames they can find at the San Francisco Gay Pride parade and portray them like, "These are the gays that want to sleep next to your son in the US military!" and other similar crap. This is the commandment that makes me wish the Bible was "True," because all those fundamentalist sonsabitches like Jerry Fartwell and James Kennedy would get what they deserved . . .
10) No coveting? To do away with coveting, ya gotta do away with 90% of all advertising, and consequently the American capitalistic system would crumble. Folks would stop buying stuff to make themselves look better, smell better, etc etc.

Well, Mart651, want to argue any of these points? Can you defend the modern use of the Ten Commandments? No? Then why in the name of all that is holy and precious to all of us AS users post them all over creation?

You could edit the list down to 3 or 4, post 'em as "The Only Commandments Worth a ****," and you might persuade me to put a few copies up around here in Dallas.

So . . . what do you think . . . should the 10 Commandments be edited, or can you defend them as they are?
--Tock

**bermich** · 03-17-2004, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by BamaSlamma

Besides..let the Russians laugh..jobless bastards.

LOL. I see them in the snow waiting in the bread line laughing at us...

**floyd_turbo** · 03-17-2004, 09:09 PM

crusade time boys

tock i'll meet you in constantinople, should i bring the prostitutes this time?

ft-

**Tock** · 03-18-2004, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

Think of a Fundamentalist Christian version of Iran. That is what these idiots are working for.
Have you never heard about "Christian Reconstructionists?" Do a Yahoo search on this . . . there's lots of 'em around, it's scary how they want to change this country.
--Tock

Oops . . . They used to call themselves "Reconstructionists," now the word is "Dominionist," because they seek dominion over the whole earth.
Here's the website for the 'belly of the beast,' the organization set up by Rushdooney himself:
http://www.chalcedon.edu/

Check this out, plus do a websearch on "Dominionist" and you'll be surprised at what you turn up.
-Tock