February 24, 2004

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 This is a bill that religious conservatives are trying to pass. Read it and weep. `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.'. Who needs the Supreme Court anyway?
posted by Sullivan 20 years ago
  • Our favorite monkey himself sure did. Come on... couldn't help going for that one.
  • Big surprise, Lindsay Graham is co-sponsor of the Senate version. Reading that tripe just created herpes lesions on my eyes. Excuse me while I go sue...there's still time isn't there?
  • Grandstanding for the Wednesday night prayer meeting set. We'll get to watch this die a quick, ignoble death in committee. What's nice, though, is that this gives this bill's proponents' opposition extra bullets at election time.
  • OK. That's not scary. Nooooot scary at aaalllllllllll... *backs away slowly* (It's not so much the idea that it might get passed, which is surely implausible, but just that they'd even think it.) Just out of interest, in all the constitutional discussions of late, there's much talk of the Christian basis for the US Constitution and US law. I know less about the subject than I should. Now obviously it pretty much originated from a Christian culture, but to what extent is it actually legally based on the idea of "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government"? (And also, does that phrase 'sovereign source' have any meaning whatsoever, other than to sound impressive?) "Please stop hurting me, Mr Policeman!" "Sorry, sonny, but Jesus is telling me to kick you in the gonads right now, so there's not much you can do about it." Or, alternatively, "Allah is telling me to kick you in the Gonads right now." "Damn. I knew we should have specified which God we were talking about."
  • Well that does it. I've had to gouge my eyes out and am now preparing to dig a hole in the backyard that I might crawl into and die. Thank you and good night!
  • Relax! if perfectly qualified judicial candidates (of either stripe) can't get a floor vote, this piece of knuckleheadedness will never get past the shithouse door in the Hart Building.
  • So let's pretend this ends up a law somehow. Spontaneous stupidity on the part of everyone involved maybe. Wouldn't any court strike it down as unconstitutional? 'cause clearly it violates the ol' church and state separation. Or have I missed something? Also, wouldn't this let Satan worshipping liberals seize control? Our time has come at last!
  • No problem, Fes. If the grossly unqualified candidates nominated don't get past, Bush just appoints 'em during recess anyway.
  • I'm confused - what does that actually say, translated out of legalese?
  • If a government official does or refuses to do something because it would annoy God, then no court is allowed to say "Are you on crack?" and then boot them out the door. The court would no longer be allowed to rule on religous issues, and indeed would be subserviant to God's will in all governmental affairs. Unless I hideously misread it of course.
  • So that last bit about being subservient appears to be wrong sort of. Basically, it says all law derives from God, and the court isn't allowed to argue with any law that does in fact derive from God, (see homosexuality, female menstruation, and whatever else crazed prophet X was against on a given day.) So, basically God would trump the constitution. Bleh.
  • The US currency rules supreme: the USD -> (not-so-)United State of Delerium.
  • * foams at the mouth *
  • Will someone do me a favor and break down all the legal mumbo jumbo and tell me what this is really about?
  • Kimberly- What the mumbo jumbo says is that, in the event that someone like Justice Roy Moore (for example) wants to put up a ginormous monument of the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the State Supreme Court, (for example) and point to it and say "that's my acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of all law" then the Supreme Court would not have the authority to issue the ruling requiring removal of that monument. It's just more grandstanding from the religious conservatives.
  • * head explodes * And this act is called the Constitution Restoration Act? And it vibrates? I would probably find this funny if I hadn't just read that really long, scary article on John Ashcroft. (Thanks ambrosia!!)
  • Would this bill mean that if a recognised Christian Church married a gay couple, intoning the famous "what God has put together, let no man sunder", it would be illegal for the courts not to recognise the marriage?
  • rodgerd hates America, everyone! Look! rodgerd hates America! It's interesting, isn't it, that while the intention is clearly "our version of God is the sovereign source of law", they can't actually come out and say that - presumably because having to legally define what the right kind of God is would just look, well, silly. Because it doesn't look at all silly as it is... And what the heckfire is with the "God is the sovereign source of liberty" stuff? I mean, just how does that work?
  • What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" don't these fucktards understand!
  • rodgerd, you are brilliant.
  • Sullivan, is it possible that this was the secret handiwork of Ralph Nader?
  • Dizzy, I said it before and I say it again. Nader is making you dizzy. Pez, your interpretation of the bill is correct. I'm sure John Ashcroft would back it.