Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on June 03, 2005, 11:03:33 PM
-
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8923.htm
05/18/05 "Vermont Guardian"
WASHINGTON — Conservatives balk at accusations that the current Congress and the Bush administration are intent on turning the United States into a theocracy. Yet, a bill sponsored by 28 members of the U.S. House and Senate looks like a move in that direction.
According to the text of the bill, the proposed Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 would remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "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."
Commenting on the general trend, Bill Moyers noted in a March article for the New York Review of Books that the religious right backs nearly half the members of Congress. "Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the most influential Christian Right advocacy groups," he noted.
If passed, the bill also would limit the ability of judges to interpret the Constitution if it involved "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."
Judges who fail to comply could be impeached or prosecuted.
Project Censored award-winning journalist W. David Kubiak charges that the bill would divorce U.S. jurisprudence from "our hard-won secular history and international norms." The Conservative Caucus has called it an important step that would prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from weighing in on "the acknowledgement of God (as in the Roy Moore 10 Commandments issue); and it also restricts federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign countries and international law [e.g., against torture, global warming, unjust wars, etc.] as the supreme law of our land."
Thus far, the mainstream media has ignored the legislation. A May 16 search of Google News turned up no coverage, despite the fact that the office of lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL, told Kubiak last week, "We have the votes for passage."
Copyright: Vermont Guardian.
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:)
:eek:
-
Fosterites.
Time to kick the hippies outta the bomb shelters.
-
Why the heck would we want to stick with our old "English Law" Constitutional basis when we can swap to whatever is trendy this month in the elite world international lawyer circles?
Sheesh.
-
I'll tell ya what I REALLY worry about...
four confirmed incidents in which U.S. personnel at the base mishandled the Quran, including guards kicking a detainee's Quran; a guard's urine "splashed" a detainee and his holy book after coming through an air vent; and guards got in a water balloon fight that resulted in two detainees' Qurans getting wet.
Mein Cod! The HORROR! Water balloon water ON A QURANNNNNNNNNN!!! Arggh!
Give me a good clean holy beheading of a total innocent or a good car-bombing of a funeral any day.
After all, there is no greater crime on all the earth than an Infidel disrespecting the Quran.
The Hood report cited three separate incidents in which detainees tried to flush the Quran down the toilet.
In one incident, on February 23, 2004, the report said a guard saw a "detainee place two Qurans in his toilet and state he no longer cared about the Quran or his religion.
Five minutes later, after the detainee retrieved the Qurans, he ripped several pages out of one Quran and threw the pages on the floor. Then, he placed both Qurans on the sink."
Another time, on January 19, 2005, a detainee "tore up his Quran and tried to flush it down the toilet. Four guards witnessed the incident," the report said.
The report also cited 12 other incidents by detainees, including one who used his Quran as a pillow, another who urinated on his holy book and several who ripped pages from the Quran.
Well, OK... no greater crime except maybe a Muslim disrespecting his holy book.
Gotta love those "fast breaking stories". Where's Paul Harvey when you need him at the editor's desk?
-
Under the new law, a judge couldn't prevent me from claiming that the sky is falling?
-
Pick your symbol... One one side, the Quran and on the other, the U.S. flag. Plenty of people in both camps that get their panties all up in a bunch if you take a piss on one of 'em.
-
wow. you boys sure know how to dodge an issue.
we keep walking down this path and history is going to quickly forget that we went to the moon...much the same as most have with regards to ancient arabia and its advances in science and mathematics.
gee. can't wait for that party.
-
hollywood needs to work on the concept.
"Piss on THIS!"
Coming to Fox this fall.
-
Oh, yes indeedy. It's exactly the same.
When someone, somewhere disrespects the American flag we riot and kill.
Newsweek May 23 issue - By the end of the week, the rioting had spread from Afghanistan throughout much of the Muslim world, from Gaza to Indonesia. Mobs shouting "Protect our Holy Book!" burned down government buildings and ransacked the offices of relief organizations in several Afghan provinces. The violence cost at least 15 lives, injured scores of people and sent a shudder through Washington, where officials worried about the stability of moderate regimes in the region.
-
Originally posted by JB88
history is going to quickly forget that we went to the moon...
Yep, history might forget that.
I seriously doubt history will forget this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Which is why it is laughable that the heartfelt emotion-du-jour of other world entities should ever be considered as supplanting the basis of our nation and government.
-
again. nice dodge of the issue.
guy #1 - congress is pissing on the constitution.
guy #2 - yah, but hey, they are so sensative about us pissing on the koran.
guy #1 - you dont get it do you?
guy #2 - ugh. hey somebody pass me the remote, i hear that hannity is going to call
bush an earthly god head.
-
Your #1 is an opinion, unsupported in anyway by any of your posts in this thread.
Your #2 illustrates how the emotion-du-jour is simply silly.
Your #3 is another assumption, again totally unsupported. It's quite possible that we all "get it" but don't value it like you do because it's not demonstrably correct (at best).
Your #4 is the typical sarcasm directed towards those that don't agree with you.
-
ya. that's what they usually say...what they have been saying for a looooong time.
read some history brother.
please.
-
Yeah...never thought of that... I usually burn books.
[Toad, with a minor in US/World history]
Tell you what... I'll read even more history and you try supporting an argument for the first time.
Ta.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah...never thought of that... I usually burn books.
[Toad, with a minor in US/World history]
Tell you what... I'll read even more history and you try supporting an argument for the first time.
Ta.
which arguement? i'll support it.
a minor? woooooooo....that's almost like being a big bad poly sci major.
neato.
-
This argument:
congress is pissing on the constitution.
And the minor is mentioned merely to remind you that your assumptions are just that and often erroneous.
-
and the minor was noted as being just that and nothing more.
-
remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "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."
how can any law mean anything when it's written in a language that's as confusing as a medical book explaining neuro surgery.
Sorry maybe I've drank too much or its too late but I don't understand a word this says.
-
Originally posted by Toad
[Toad, with a minor in US/World history]
Dude, yah mean yah get ta wear a helmet with a lil light on it!??
Awwwwsome!
(man, this has gotta be the dullest saturday night of my life!)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
how can any law mean anything when it's written in a language that's as confusing as a medical book explaining neuro surgery.
Sorry maybe I've drank too much or its too late but I don't understand a word this says.
the devil's in the details.
-
Sorry maybe I've drank too much or its too late but I don't understand a word this says.
sounds like yer night is a carbon copy of mine.
-
Nope,
read some history brother.
please.
Assures that I have read far more than "some" history. In fact, I feel confident I have read quite a lot of history. It would not suprise me to find I have read significantly more history than you have, for instance. For a long, long time it was a hobby of mine.
But, hey... you were trying for the kewl put-down and I understand. Better luck next time.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
sounds like yer night is a carbon copy of mine.
yup just drinking beer....letting tomorrows ribs marinate....and watching season one of 4400 with the wife unit.
pretty dull
OH and I ran 2.8 miles up hill this morning in terrible heat dehydrated (I drank last night too) at 6:45AM so My body feels like bellybutton warmed over.
yup....pretty dull.
-
oh. even more psychology.
excellent.
ok. you are right. you have most certainly more reading of history under your belt.
i know this cuz you say so.
and of course, we all know that all that you have to do is read it and it is suddenly as clear as a bell.
give me a break there proffessor.
(yawn)
-
Hi Sandman,
Not that it matters, but the intention of the bill is ultimately to reign in the power of the courts and return the power to decide moral and religious issues to the people and the legislatures.
In other words, if the people of a state wanted their children to be able to say "under God" when they pledged allegiance in school and they wrote and passed legislation allowing that, this bill would prevent Federal Appeals Court Judges from making that impossible. It would also potentially return the ability to actually decide on issues like assisted suicide, euthanasia, and abortion to the voters of individual states rather than vesting these decisions absolutely in an unelected judicial oligarchy.
The following is a more full explanation of the reasoning behind the bill from a source obviously more favorably disposed towards it:
What Congress Giveth, Congress Can Taketh Away
By Kay R. Daly
March 28, 2005
The biggest misconception about the federal judiciary is that it is an all-powerful entity unto itself that can only be reined in by placing strict constructionists or constitutionalists onto the bench and hoping for the best. The truth of the matter is that it is the United States Congress as designated by Article III of the U.S. Constitution that created the lower courts of the federal judiciary.
This seems to be lost not only on the American people, but several members of Congress.
The critical line in Article III, Section 1, states: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress MAY from time to time ordain and establish." The key word is "may." It does not say that Congress "must" or "shall" create these federal courts.
In other words, it is the Congress that may or may not create the lower courts of the federal judiciary. They pay for the buildings, confirm the judges, and pay their salaries. In addition, without a statute from Congress granting jurisdiction, the federal court quite simply has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Congress is in the driver's seat and can expand or limit the scope of their jurisdiction as they see fit. Specifically, in Section 2 of Article III, judicial powers are enumerated in detail.
At the heart of the battle over the Terri Schiavo case is the epic struggle between the legislative and the judicial branches of government. The biggest myth of all in this battle is that Congress overstepped its bounds by allowing federal jurisdiction in the Schiavo case. It was certainly an extraordinary step to take, but it only seems extraordinary because the myth of the untouchable judiciary has not been debunked.
As a matter of law, Congress could convene today and abolish the entire federal judiciary, with the exception of the Supreme Court. It could also create a federal court to hear nothing but Terri Schiavo cases within the bounds of federal legal jurisdiction as enumerated in Article III, Section 2. The Congress has already created specific federal courts on tax law, national security and even maritime issues, so it has been done before.
In the past couple of years, we have seen examples of judicial tyranny in landmark cases about the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and gay marriage, to name but a few. Judicial activism and judicial tyranny has expanded exponentially only because "we the people" and our elected Congressional representatives have allowed it to happen.
Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) and Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) have introduced bills, S-520 in the Senate and HR 1070 in the House entitled the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005" that would limit the power of the federal judiciary specifically in religious liberty cases. These bills were also introduced in 2004, but languished in committee and were reintroduced at the beginning of this current congressional session.
This is not a new idea. In fact, in the 1980s, Senator Jesse Helms and Congressman Henry Hyde introduced bills repeatedly that would limit the federal courts jurisdiction over the specific issue of abortion. And it is not only the "hot button" social issues that bring into focus the power of the federal judiciary. Capping damages in class action cases also limits the federal courts overly broad discretion.
The main point here is that what Congress giveth, Congress can also taketh away. And quite frankly, it should. The grassroots efforts to confirm federal judges who will apply the Constitution as it is written should also include a strong push to limit judicial tyranny by demanding that our elected representatives, sworn to uphold the Constitution, to become cosponsors and move these bills to final passage.
In fact to fulfill the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, our elected representatives have an absolute obligation to reign in our out-of-control activist judiciary. In the last fifty years, it has been activist judges who have single handedly done more damage to our Constitution than the liberal media, pop culture and leftist politicians combined.
Terri Schiavo's greatest final gift to us might just be the spotlight that she has put on our system of justice. With all the legal and moral arguments swirling around her tragic story, there is enough speculation and misinformation to feed the punditocracy and legal scholars for years to come.
For those of us in the grassroots, troubled by Terri Schiavo's impending demise and the courts' complicity in it, roll up your sleeves. The fight has only begun.
(Source: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/kdaly/2005/krd_03281.shtml)
[Why, oh why, do I enter into these political discussions - I must be a loon]
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by JB88
and of course, we all know that all that you have to do is read it and it is suddenly as clear as a bell.
Hey, it was your suggestion for self-improvement. Now it's no good?
:)
Too bad you were just talking out yer anal vent. Again. ;)
I apologize. In the future, I shall try to give your posts the consideration they truly deserve.
(yawn)
-
seagoon, i'd say that you were a "major"
disagree with it, but appreciate the reading none the less.
-
[Why, oh why, do I enter into these political discussions - I must be a loon]
Actually.. thanks for posting that.. I actually learned something.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hey, it was your suggestion for self-improvement. Now it's no good?
:)
Too bad you were just talking out yer anal vent. Again. ;)
I apologize. In the future, I shall try to give your posts the consideration they truly deserve.
(yawn)
(chorus)
i am the very model of a modern minor general...
-
Very detailed, organized, factual and cogent debate style you have there JB88.
:rofl
-
effective. granted.
the rest is flattery.
gets you nowhere.
om.
-
Hey, if you ever post anything with substance, will you bold it for me?
Thanks.
-
sounds like i'd have to drive over to your house and hand deliver it to you with a big pretty bow.
sorry...no time for stragglers and people who wont work for it.
if you can't see it.
you cant see it.
all there is to it.
-
In your case, it's not there and no one can see it.
-
speak for everyone do you now?
wow.
-
Originally posted by JB88
congress is pissing on the constitution.
Nothing there but an unsupported opinion. You've made no effort to support it.
Somehow you apparently expect others to accept it as fact.
Doesn't work that way.
It's not there, no one can see it.
Check Seagoon's post. He quotes a supported opinion. You may not agree with it but surely you can tell the difference.
All you've got is tossing meaningless barbs. Get past that, your posts may someday be worth reading.
-
Yeah, you're right. I'm known here for short "drive by" posts of opinion without supporting documentation. It's my modus operadi; ask anyone.
-
uh huh.
but back to what i was saying.
so you speak for everyone right?
-
What that bill SOUNDS like is the Republican side of congress trying to limit the 35-odd year pattern of the Supreme Court slowly but surely making any mention or public display of religion illegal, and in a few other ways, trying to make us more like Europe--(remember Anthony Kennedy citing legal precedents in Europe for a recent ruling?..REALLY ticked some peeps off) Like it or not, this country WAS founded by a buncha religious types---not to say it's a theocracy, but I see no benefit of stamping out all mentions of religion from public life just to make the Bill Moyers, Bill Maher, and the ACLU happy. If we wanna make ourselves more like main-stream Europe, we can double our unemployment, triple our taxes, and halve our GNP
-
it is NOT making public display illegal sir, only government SANCTION of religion unconstitutional. which it is.
as a nation devoted to freedom, we set ourselves apart by allowing individuals to set thier own philosophical and spiritual compass. the government is composed of individuals as oppossed to being one in and of itself.
im pretty sure that i could put the ten commandments in my yard or on my car and noone would object.
(or even a judge in his chambers)
but we are talking about a NATION of LAWS created around a principle of FREEDOM (and based as much on the enlightenment and the age of reason and greek democracy and roman republicanism as it ever was christianity...a hybrid in and of itself) to worship our own gods. a judge or a commision or a publicly funded school cannot claim to hold that authority under our current constitution as it is not and individual.
congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion was written and signed by our early government as a means of ensuring that it is not swayed by the bias of specificity with regards to religious dogma and its effects upon reason and justice.
we are ALL free to worship OR chose not too.
and, as it is ALL of our tax money and it is collectively OUR government. (meaning shared, not the possession of an elite or otherwise dogmatic minority)
THUS. in a free society if you want your kids to pray...send em to a religious school.
take the time to teach them rather than trying to tell others how to.
make em pray over thier wheaties for goodness sakes. that IS your business.
if you wish to be judged by god. fine. go to church and ask god to judge you.
on the stand? as god to look over you.
i ask only to be judged by a fair human with a decent mind for reason while on this earth...the rest is my business.
if you really want to see it another way... call a constitutional convention and get it amended. thats another great thing. it can be changed.
until then, will the people in the fancy robes and the righteous indignation please quit hogging the stage and get busy reading the bible with your kids so we dont have to.
please.
thank you.
peace.
:)
-
the nerve of these people!!!! imagine that!!!! having us stick to a well thought out plan for government. well we all know that the principals espoused in that arcane document will just never work. fire the lot of them.
-
toad... it matters not that 88 can't back up his 'pissing on the constitution' remark.
What matters is that it is hip and now sounding while you are hidebound and stodgey sounding. You suck with your asking him to prove what he is saying..
I wouldn't blame him if he put you on ignore. You are the one who probly made him start smoking again.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
toad... it matters not that 88 can't back up his 'pissing on the constitution' remark.
What matters is that it is hip and now sounding while you are hidebound and stodgey sounding. You suck with your asking him to prove what he is saying..
I wouldn't blame him if he put you on ignore. You are the one who probly made him start smoking again.
lazs
:lol
-
Well, I see your point and I just signed up for an online course called "Hip and Now Sounding 101". Figured I might as well make a semester of it and also signed on for "l33t keyboard skilz", "Debating Using Only Opinion" and, of course, "How To Be A Victim" to round it off.
-
well... I may have been a little harsh...
You are much cooler in person.
Still don't see how you will avoid 88's ignore list tho.
lazs
-
That thought kept me awake last night right up until my head hit the pillow. It was just.... HORRIBLE boo hoo hoo hoo.
-
Thanx Seagoon. So the bill would reign in the lower courts?
Seems to me that the system they have now probably speeds up the process. Imagine if the Supreme Court had to hear everything. With the current process, the Supreme Court is free to overrule any decision made by a lower court.
-
yea thanks seagoon. With a good nights sleep and a lower BAC I can actually understand that.
-
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see where our government sanctioning a religon is illegal according to this text..Just saying it cannot ESTABLISH a national religon or prevent anyone from freely practicing their own religon.
Nowhere does this state that the government must be completely seperated from religon..If that was the case then a long long time ago, they would have never put "In god we trust" on our currency..much less later on add it to the allegance..or have ever put any reference to it on buildings..most built before the weenies that are whining about all this were ever born.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see where our government sanctioning a religon is illegal according to this text..Just saying it cannot ESTABLISH a national religon or prevent anyone from freely practicing their own religon.
I've seen that interpretation a few times. I may be wrong, but it seems like it's being misread.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, "
It does not say "the establishing of an." Even if it just said "the establishment of..." it would have a better shot. But it doesn't.
It says an establishment. Meaning an existing establishment. A noun, not a verb:
1 : something established : as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
Therefore it seems to be saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting (regarding) a church or any other establishment where religion is practiced.
Nothing about establishing a national religion or anything like that.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
[Why, oh why, do I enter into these political discussions - I must be a loon]
- SEAGOON
because you do it so well and should continue to do so. great post.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I've seen that interpretation a few times. I may be wrong, but it seems like it's being misread.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, "
It does not say "the establishing of an." Even if it just said "the establishment of..." it would have a better shot. But it doesn't.
It says an establishment. Meaning an existing establishment. A noun, not a verb:
1 : something established : as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
Therefore it seems to be saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting (regarding) a church or any other establishment where religion is practiced.
Nothing about establishing a national religion or anything like that.
but then according to your statement there is no "separation of church and state" but that congress can't make laws pertaining to religion. We all know that's not the case though, there's laws respecting a tax exemption for one. To me the first amendment protects a cities right to place a nativity scene on govt property. To outlaw that would be prohibiting the free exercise there of.
Same thing about not letting boy scouts use govt land for camping. The ACLU sued many times based on the fact they claim they are a religious based organization. Same goes for a voluntary school prayer before a football game. That is NOT congress respecting the bla bla bla but prohibiting it is in fact a direct violation.
I don't allways get all the angles to this but I do try and see other's points of view. Many wish to not see religious icons in public squares to avoid "offending people" I fail to see protection against being offended any were in the constitution.