Insanity to the highest degree
Started: Friday, March 19, 2004 01:03
Finished: Friday, March 19, 2004 01:30
Or... How did this one slip under my radar last month?
So-called "Constitution Restoration Act" threatens to turn America into a theocratic state. Admittedly, the tone of that article is a bit on the sensationalist side, and it comes from a source that I am heretofore unfamiliar with. Though I've learnd there's just about no evil beyond Bush and his cronies, I want something more substantial.
So, wanting to get to the bottom of it, I did some skunking around, and found the bill number (not hard with Google). HR 3799. Find it on congress's website. (Just enter "HR3799" into the Bill Number box. I can't link directly, because it relies on a POST query.) Sure enough. Right there in the text of the bill.
'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.'.
So... If I'm reading the legalese right, this bill would disallow judicial review of any law passed by someone who claims God was the reason behind it. Aside from being a blatent attempt to stand the U.S. Constitution on its head, this, if it passes and somehow miraculously manages to survive legal challenges (hahaha), is damn scary stuff.
If something like this had been effect when congress passed the CDA, all they would have had to do was say, "God doesn't want you surfing for Internet pr0n", and the entire thing would instantly be beyond judicial remedy.
Note also that this is a separate bill from another similarly idiotic measure that somebody posted a link here about a couple days ago, which would allow congress to overrule a court decision with a super majority. Taken together, these bills amount to a full on assault by congress against the Constitution of the United State. (Ironic, considering the title of the bill.)
Additionally disturbing is that unlike the other bill, this "Constitution Restoration Act" has been introduced in both the House and the Senate, with several sponsors in both. One of the Senate sponsors is none other than Wayne Allard of Colorado.
Well, I didn't vote for him in '02 because he supported the Patriot Act. But by supporting this extremist stuff, he just got 10 times worse in my view.
Are there any republicans left who remember a single shred of their Contract With America from 10 years ago?
Ancient history, I suppose. Well, so is my support for anyone who aligns themselves with the downfall of my country.
by bouncing (2004-03-19 08:29)
It's a well known that in America, the Supreme Court is the most well-respected branch of the Federal government system of checks and balances. Maybe it's because they're unelected and therefor seldom go through political mud slinging, but I think it's also because the court has been such a positive force for change in our country.
Until recently, the system of checks and balances that keep one branch of government from getting too powerful has been respected, even by those in the minorities. But I too have noticed a marked increase, since Bush took office, in what amounts to court bashing -- calling Justices names. What I think signaled that the attack on the Supreme Court is on was when in his State of The Union, George W. Bush went so far as to use the term "Activist" judges, openly defaming the only remaining check on the power of his party.
This in many ways similar to the events in the Middle East, specifically, Iraq. A few weeks ago, Paul Brimmer said he would oppose any Iraqi constitution that provides specific language binding Iraqi Law to Islamic law. Iraqis generally favor a more theocratic state, but United States administrators, trying to establish Democracy, know better.
We're also very concerned that in Malaysia, there is power struggle over creating an "Islamic State".
The ironic thing is, while Bush supposedly tries to promote Democracy around the world and his administrator in Iraq, Paul Brimmer, fights for a secular government in Iraq, Bush is doing everything in his power to destroy the Democratic secularism here at home.
Islamic radicals who want to create an "Islamic State" in the middle-east we easily reject and religious extremists. Meanwhile, in the West, Christian radicals want to create a "Christian state" with the exact some kind of fundamentalist dogma that caused 9/11. Maybe we should with defending Democracy at home?