April 08, 2005

The Consitutional Restoration Act

Here's your moment of Christian Right Zen for the month: Senate Bill 520, "The Constitutional Restoration Act of 2005"

Point One:
`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.'
Please note the wording of that last sentance. "God as the SOVERIGN source of law, liberty or government." Essentially this says that God's law supercedes man's law, so if no state or local laws prevent it, Federal judges cannot review a case in which a man sells his daughter into slavery, takes an eye for an eye, or worships a false idol. This goes way beyond the issue of posting the Ten Commandments outside a courthouse or having a Christmas Tree on the statehouse lawn, this is putting capital-g God above the supreme court, and leaves the interpretation of the words of said God to the people. And if you read up on your history, the people can be incredibly bad at interpreting.

Point Two:

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.
So any laws from an international governing body, such as the UN, or humanitarian laws like the Geneva Conventions, would not have any standing in Federal court, regardless if any American President signed them. A convenient arrangement for Attorney General "Abu Ghraib" Gonzales, isn't it?

And what about that last part..."up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. This effectively bans the Federal Courts from considering any treaties or laws passed after 1787. So anything after The Paris Peace Treaty is not admissable in court. Talk about your revisionist historians. Not surprisingly, most conservative journalists conveniently leave off that last sentance in order to garner support from the masses.

The good news is that the bill is not well supported. Even right-wing "democrat" Zell Miller dropped his sponsorship of this bill since last year. And when Zell Miller can't get behind a bill that sets back laws 200 years, you KNOW it's bad.

No comments:

Post a Comment