[ Website Home | List of Articles ]
Category: Constitutional Rights Content: Legislation passed and pending in the US Congress that would seriously erode Separation of Church and State On Thursday, September 24, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 247 to 173 to strip federal courts of the authority to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, in its current altered version (with the "Under God" phrases that was added to the original Pledge in 1954, in the shadow of the McCarthy era). This follows House approval of a bill in July that limits the courts' ability to review cases involving the legal definition of marriage. Pending in both the House and the Senate is The Constitution Restoration Act (HR.3799, S.2082), which would prohibit the courts from intervening on issues involving violations of government/religion separation by elected or appointed officials. According to news server http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/24/221558/777., this pending bill was authored by Herb Titus, a known Dominionist who represented ex-Judge Roy Moore and was the former dean of Pat Robertson's School of Public Policy. Under the Constitution Restoration Act, the following proposed law will be added to Sec. 1260 of Title 28, Chapter 81 of the U.S. Code: "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 acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." 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." (note "foreign" in this context means another state in the United States other than the one in which a case is being heard) The "international" part ensures that, by force of law, US judges could not be guided by the Geneva Conventions or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even if the US is a signatory. from: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/24/221558/777 It Has Begun: Phase Two of the Theocrat Coup, by galiel, Sat Sep 25th, 2004 at 02:15:58 GMT Referring to this bill, Susan Milligan quotes Congressman Barney Frank: ..."This bill is bizaree," said representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Newton and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. "Once you start down this road, you're going to create a rpecedent. You will see laws in area after area (where) there is no uniform national interpretation of them." Friday, September 24, Boston Globe, Susan Milligan "House Votes to pregent court review of Pledge"