|
10 Apr 05 - 12:18 AM (#1456784) Subject: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Amos Legal Repression Tyranny Death in Maryland Privileged Torture All Kubiak Getting Started ZMagazine Writers ZBlogs Watches Resources Languages Interactive Parecon Sustainers Purchases Search Contact Introducing The Constitution Restoration Act Say Hello To Taliban America And Goodbye To Godless Judges, Courts And Law ......... by W. David Kubiak April 03, 2005 Printer Friendly Version EMail Article to a Friend Tired of waiting for the Second Coming to enforce Christ's rule on Earth? Fortunately, so is your Congress and they know how to "bring it on." Just when you thought the corporatist/Christian Coalition had milked the 9/11 "surprise" for all it was worth in powers, profits and votes, we regret to report that you may have to think again. Just in case you've briefly fallen behind on your rightwing mailing lists, you might have missed the March 3rd filing of Senate bill S. 520 and House version is H.R. 1070, AKA the "Constitution Restoration Act" (CRA). In the worshipful words of the Conservative Caucus, this historic legislation will "RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION!", mainly by barring ANY federal court or judge from ever again reviewing "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." [Emphasis demanded - see full text here.] In other words, the bill ensures that God's divine word (and our infallible leaders' interpretation thereof) will hereafter trump all our pathetic democratic notions about freedom, law and rights -- and our courts can't say a thing. This, of course, will take "In God We Trust" to an entirely new level, because soon He (and His personally anointed political elite) will be all the legal recourse we have left. This is not a joke, a test, or a fit of libertarian paranoia. The CRA already has 28 sponsors in the House and Senate, and a March 20 call to lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby's office assures us that "we have the votes for passage." This is a highly credible projection as Bill Moyers observes in his 3/24/05 "Welcome to Doomsday" piece in the New York Review of Books: "The corporate, political, and religious right's hammerlock... extends to the US Congress. Nearly half of its members before the election-231 legislators in all (more since the election)-are backed by the religious right... 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." This stunning bill and the movement behind it deserve immediate crash study on at least 3 different fronts. 1. Its hostile divorce of American jurisprudence from our hard-won secular history and international norms. To again quote the Conservative Caucus: "This important bill will restrict the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that permitted by the U.S. Constitution, including on the subject of 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. - ed.] as the supreme law of our land." Re the last point, envision some doddering judges who still revere our Declaration of Independence's "decent respect to the opinions of mankind," and suppose they invoke in their rulings some international precepts from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women or, God forbid, the Geneva Conventions. Well, under the CRA that would all be clearly illegal and, thank God, that's the last we'd ever hear from them. 2. The political implications of replacing "we the people" with a Christian deity as the "sovereign source" of all our laws. Imagine hyper-zealous officers or "entities" of the Federal, State, or local government (like a governor, legislature or school board) that mandate Christian prayers, rituals and/or statuary in public buildings under their control. Were this to happen, some local Jews, Muslims and/or Buddhists might be moved to hire a lawyer and legally object. But if the CRA passes, their objection would be beyond any court's jurisdiction and that's the last we'd ever hear of that. It in fact demands "impeachment, conviction, and removal of judges" who dare to even hear a case that challenges its "Last Days" morphing of Christian church and state. (Just how our new Sovereign Source of Government's advocacy of public executions for adultery, gay-ness, contraception and blasphemy will fit into our current corrections system still remains to be seen.) 3 The incessant mainstream media blackout on the bill's existence and import. The potential impact of the Constitution Restoration Act on American life, law and politics is so radical and vast that you would expect a boiling national debate. Yet just as with the crimes and questions of 9/11, everyone in the media seems terrifically busy looking the other way. If you want yet another dramatic metric of US journalistic dysfunction, try Googling "Constitution Restoration Act" in their News category and see what you get. Today, three weeks after the bill was filed, I find a grand total of three throwaway mentions in Alabama's Shelby County Reporter, the Decatur Daily, and the Massachusetts Daily Collegian. ("Terry Schiavo" in contrast will net you over a thousand news hits, and "Michael Jackson" just passed 36,000 with a bullet.) If the Alabama paper interest seems a little odd or sponsor Shelby's name a bit familiar, you should recall that this old boy AL senator was high among those same wonderful folks who kicked off the 9/11 cover-up. As his Senate bio proudly relates: "From 1995 to 2003, Senator Shelby served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In this capacity, he and the other committee members provided oversight of the intelligence community, and following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Senator Shelby served diligently to investigate the intelligence failures that led to those attacks." [Emphasis demanded again.] Got that? First he "oversees" intelligence for six years before 9/11, then "diligently investigates" its bizarre "failures" for two years more, and finally finds--in a no-fault judgment--it was all due to "deep institutional defects" and "systemic miscommunication" that he'd apparently never noticed or heard about before. Having so brilliantly defended the country before 9/11 and the official story since, some seem to find it comforting that he's now busy defending our court-harassed Constitution with a legally bulletproofed God. Some, alas, do not -- feel comforted, that is, either by Shelby's blurry oversight or fundamentalist agenda, not to mention the Orwellian performance of our autistic corporate press. In the meantime, however, before the CRA takes force and reduces legal education to a Bible study course, what say we undertake a little Constitutional defense of our own? To get up to speed on the current Christian right agenda, Moyers' "Welcome to Doomsday", Katherine Yurica's "The Despoiling of America" and John "The 9/11 Truth Candidate" Buchanan's "Fixing America" are excellent places to start. None of these analyses offer a silver bullet or paint a pretty picture, but as students of 9/11 now know, spreading the courage to face the truth is really the only hope we've got. W. David Kubiak is a Project Censored award-winning journalist and executive director of 911truth.org. He can be reached at david(at)911truth.org. (He is indebted to John Buchanan for the latest heads-up on this story and the Shelby office call.) From this site A |
|
10 Apr 05 - 12:22 AM (#1456786) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: DougR Run for the hills! DougR |
|
10 Apr 05 - 01:02 AM (#1456800) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Amos Yap yap, Doug; your Right Wing Dramatists gang is mounting the most anti-American campaign since Rockwell's American Nazi party; I am surprised a man of your intelligence is willing to stand still for it. A |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:29 AM (#1456832) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Ebbie This is incredible. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 04:12 AM (#1456855) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: dianavan Say good-bye to the apple pie. The America you once knew Give birth anew To a Christian brew ...of strange fruit Hidden from your eye. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 01:19 PM (#1457225) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bill D read it!> They are not kidding. It says 'if some entity has a problem with religion being pushed' (MY language)the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction "concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.''. then it says that if the Supreme Court doesn't, lesser courts don't either. This could have been written by former judge Roy Moore of Alabama, himself. think about it, everyone...think VERY carefully. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 01:24 PM (#1457229) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bill D read some analysis note, just as I suspected!.....Editor's Note: February 28, 2004 Update: This article omits one fact that should have been included: the bill was drafted by former Judge Roy Moore's lawyer, Herb Titus. Those who have read The Despoiling of America will know that Titus was the first Dean of Pat Robertson's School of Public Policy and is a known Dominionist who has advocated the abolition of the government's licensing powers. He has argued that government oversteps when it licenses lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc. Also, an earlier bill titled "Religious Liberties Restoration Act," S. 1558 dated July 21, 2003, specifically authorizes the display of the ten commandments and other religious references and exempts such items from judicial review by the U.S. Federal Courts. Our question is: What is actually intended by the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004?] |
|
10 Apr 05 - 01:24 PM (#1457230) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: GUEST Keep looking for your sacred "common ground" liberals. You won't find it with this lot of theocratic oafs. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 02:47 PM (#1457313) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Peace Amos, I'd report you to the Information Awareness Office, but I rather think they already know you started this thread. Bruce |
|
10 Apr 05 - 02:50 PM (#1457315) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bill D (them anonymous 'guests' are probably IAO operatives, baiting us so they know who to lock up when they get full power...*grin*) |
|
10 Apr 05 - 02:58 PM (#1457318) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Peace Sounds like a plan. 1) Make society cashless thus requiring 'bank' cards. Hence, you can track people immediately. 2) Control the internet on/off switch. 3) Control media. 4) Tell people what you want them to hear. 5) Visit them when they don't listen. Yep, it's a brave new world we have before us. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:01 PM (#1457324) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Peace Don't wanna have to tell you again . . . . |
|
10 Apr 05 - 08:17 PM (#1457599) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: GUEST,Dave (the ancient mariner) "If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court...the people have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." -- Abraham Lincoln |
|
10 Apr 05 - 08:21 PM (#1457602) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: CarolC Did Mr. Lincoln say that before or after he became president? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 08:23 PM (#1457604) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Peace He said it in his first inaugural address. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 08:27 PM (#1457608) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: CarolC Thanks. Presidents generally aren't too keen on any kind of oversight. I don't see any reason why Mr. Lincoln would be any exception. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 08:50 PM (#1457628) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bobert History repeats itself... I find it interesting, yet scarey, that while the neocons use the CR as their vigilante's, they tighten the noose slowly but surely on democracy as they, as Hitler did 60 years ago, centralize power... I think their next move if they don't use the "nuclear option" will be to shut down the federall court system entirely, leaving all question to their 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court... Bobert |
|
11 Apr 05 - 04:04 AM (#1457785) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: dianavan Sorry for the corny poem, Amos. I must have been really, super tired or maybe it was the wine. I hope I didn't kill this thread. Is this really the way America is headed? This is what happens when Government and business, marry but it is ultra greasy and without any ethics. And yes, I am disappointed with the American people. They didn't guard their own freedom and now its being taken away. They don't even seem to notice. Too busy watching the Michael Jackson trial, the Pope's burial and the Kings wedding. Disgusting! |
|
11 Apr 05 - 04:21 AM (#1457795) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Big Al Whittle i wonder if anybody stateside can explain the judge's ruling in the Jackson trial to allow evidence not related to the specific incident with which Jackson has been charged. it would seem to me to violate every tenet of justice. even if we can't prove the case, you are a person of bad character and that's enough......is that the thinking? all the best Big Al Whittle |
|
11 Apr 05 - 09:24 AM (#1457944) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bill D This thread had headed off at some weird angle.... Is anyone getting the point of what Amos first posted? There is a bill in Congress to make blurring of the church & state distinction off limits to juducial oversight!!!!!! They are trying to pass a law saying that we wont even have the right to OBJECT if religious groups put monuments to the Ten Commandments on state property. They are saying that a judge who tries to rule will be subject to recall. THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE THE MOST CONSERVATIVE, RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION A MATTER OF LAW! hello? |
|
11 Apr 05 - 02:02 PM (#1458143) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: JohnInKansas Bill D - It's a little heavier than putting up monuments. They are NOT talking just about putting the 10 Commandments on public property. They are talking about the total and complete denial of ANY AND ALL CIVIL RIGHTS of any person who does not conform to their warped belief. Kansas Consitution, voted last week, 30% of eligible voters turned out, passed - DENIAL OF ANY RECOGNITION OF ANY FORM OF CIVIL ASSOCIATION EXCEPT MARRIAGE BETWEEN A "MAN" AND A "WOMAN" including the prohibition in the State Constitution of recognition of any such association formed and/or recognized outside the state. An almost verbatim copy of the Neuremberg Act of September 1939, if you substitute "Sacredness of Marriage" for "Purity of the German Race." The Neuremberg Act was followed immediately by nearly complete suspension of all Civil Rights - we've already got the "Patriot Act". The BIGOTS who contrived this one, in their "victory celebration" produced a list of their immediate plans including MANDATORY PRAYER in schools, MANDATORY POSTING OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS in public buildings, MANDATORY LEGISLATIVE REVIEW of Judges for their "moral appropriateness," PROHIBITION AGAINST TEACHING EVOLUTION IN ANY FORM and MANDATORY TEACHING of "Creatinism," and ... I used to wonder how the Germans let it happen. We may be watching the instant replay. John |
|
11 Apr 05 - 02:52 PM (#1458195) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Amos John: Can you post a link to the source for those outlandish ambitions by the extremist faction in Kansas? A |
|
11 Apr 05 - 04:32 PM (#1458283) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: JohnInKansas Frankly Amos, I was so disgusted with the election results that I neglected to scan the article that appeared in the Wichita Eagle on Wednesday. It normally takes a few days for things to get on their website, and there's no guarantee that a given article will make it; but I'll see what I can find. John |
|
11 Apr 05 - 04:47 PM (#1458307) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bill D Yes, John...I realized that those were the implications if they got it through...I was just commenting on the headlines... and I must say, Kansas has ratcheted it up a notch even from the time I lived in Wichita! We had those folks around, of course, but they never felt quite so empowered in 1947-1977. We had the John Birch Society, blue laws, textbook banning and bible-thumping galore, but now they see an opening with the current administration in DC....I shudder to contemplate what it must be like to watch close up. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 05:03 PM (#1458316) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: JohnInKansas Amos - The only thing posted, and all that's likely to be put up, is at Wichita Eagle 11 APR 2005. The statements posted are relatively innocuous. Additional ravings were mostly in a footer to a half-page photo, and probably will not be on the web. The "bragging" is that 70% of the voters were in favor of this amendment. The legislature "failed to forward" the bill in the last session, since there actually were some other questions on the ballot. Nearly 60% of those eligible did vote in that election. By defering to the current session, the amendment and two slots on the local school board were the only questions to vote on in my district. Statewide, the turnout was a little less than 30% of registered voters, so the 70% of 30% actually amounted to about 26% of registered voters. But it was enough. The extent that the issue was pushed in the few churches in favor of it would suggest that the 26% of those eligble to vote is pretty much the entire population of blind sheep in the state; but that's not helpful if the rest don't go out to vote. (The 38% turnout in Sedgwick Co, quoted by the election commissioner, is incorrect based on prior published info on the number of registered voters in the county and published results of the election, but who's counting.) John |
|
11 Apr 05 - 05:52 PM (#1458374) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Greg F. I believe you'll find that the Supreme Court decision in the Dredd Scott case & the Fugitive Slave Act/Compromise of 1850 were largely behind Lincoln's comments. Sometimes context is more than simply important- sometimes it is everything. Best, Greg |
|
11 Apr 05 - 06:01 PM (#1458388) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: CarolC Good point, Greg. I wonder where that leaves us then. |
|
12 Apr 05 - 02:18 AM (#1458692) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Peace Laws and their interpretations may or may not contain justice. |
|
12 Apr 05 - 01:14 PM (#1459195) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: CarolC What was the process that rectified the results of the Dredd Scott case & the Fugitive Slave Act/Compromise of 1850? In what way were these decisions addressed, in legal terms? |
|
12 Apr 05 - 07:05 PM (#1459492) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: GUEST Read the book "Defying Hitler", it's all there. I've just finished it and it seems to me America is but another Reichstag fire away from losing it.I wouldn't put it past the present administration to engineer something akin to 9/11 so that they can suspend elections by claiming that in a state of emergency the administration already in place should continue. |
|
12 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM (#1459497) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Richard Bridge Hey guest, you mean they didn't? Or did they just cast counterattack on cultural and economic invaders as terrorism? |
|
12 Apr 05 - 07:57 PM (#1459529) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bobert Now we are hearing rumblings from the right wing about "impeaching" jusdges who don't goose-step... Man, geeze o' pete, we gotta get these folks outta power... and soon... before facism has a strangle-hold on out beloved country... I hope it's not too late. Mean while the DougR's and Martin Gibson's of the world will revel in what they percieve as their place in the winners circle while not noticing that it isn't a circle at all but a friggin' noose around their own necks?!?!???? When they came for the Gypsies.... Don't think it can happen? Just keep thinkin' that until they indeed come fir yer butts.... Especially yers, Martin, 'cause these guys ain't gonna like yer sense of humor one danged bit... Yer history in a neocon/CR/facist state... I hate to say it but folks concerned about the neocons shutting down the federal court system or impeaching judges that are the last line of defense, oughtta take a few minutes away from their Mudcat time and write to their closest Democratic representative, even if it the next state away and tell that representative to wake up and stand uo for America!!! I have allready done that... Bobert |
|
12 Apr 05 - 10:43 PM (#1459610) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Greg F. What was the process that rectified the results of the Dredd Scott case & the Fugitive Slave Act/Compromise of 1850? The Union victory in the War of the Rebellion, the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and Reconstruction began the process; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was part of the process, but there's still a ways to go to reach "rectification". |
|
12 Apr 05 - 11:08 PM (#1459622) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: CarolC So it was new amendments that did the trick. So this legislation that Amos posted in the beginning of this thread... is it a law, or a proposed constitutional amendment? If it's a law, how can it be immune to judcial oversight? It would seem that if it's just a law, it can be tested in the courts and the Supreme Court can find it unconstitutional. Sounds a bit circular to me. |
|
13 Apr 05 - 05:55 PM (#1460416) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Amos More, from an article in the Christyian Science Monitor: Bringing the Case against Judges By Jane Lampman The Christian Science Monitor Wednesday 13 April 2005 Are 'activist judges' ruining America? That's the fear of a newly formed coalition of religious conservatives who are urging Congress to push back. Washington - "Activist judges" are out of control and waging a war on faith, religious conservatives are charging. That's why - even as the United States Senate prepares for a battle over the president's judicial nominations - a conservative coalition is working to broaden the fight to the federal judiciary as a whole. Its ultimate goal is to force Congress to rein in the judges. The Terri Schiavo case is but the latest in a litany of court decisions that have sparked conservatives' ire. Many were also outraged by rulings that called the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional and that removed the Ten Commandments and Chief Justice Roy Moore from the Alabama high court. "An atmosphere of atheism is being forced upon us by the courts," says the Rev. Rick Scarborough, a Baptist pastor from Texas who heads the new alliance of Evangelicals, Catholics, and Jews that is leading the charge. The coalition - called the Judeo- Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration - is unabashedly pressing for radical steps. Congress has the power to undertake these, it says, given its authority to establish federal courts under Article III of the US Constitution. Proposed steps include withdrawing the courts' jurisdiction over all cases related to the acknowledgment of God or to the protection of marriage. They would extend to impeaching judges that substitute "their own views for the original meaning of the Constitution," or base a decision on foreign law; and to reducing or eliminating funding for the federal courts when judges "overstep their constitutional authority." "This is the shot over the bow," said Dr. Scarborough last Friday in Washington, as the group - which represents some 40 organizations - held the first of a series of conferences it plans to organize across the country to marshal grass-roots support. "We are trying to restore this country to its constitutional moorings so we are ruled by law and not by judges," he says. The coalition has backing from members in both houses of Congress, including House majority leader Tom DeLay (R) of Texas. Mr. DeLay addressed Friday's meeting via video, telling the group that the "judiciary has run amok" and that "Congress needs to reassert its authority." Concerns about the judiciary are simmering on several fronts at once. Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R) of Tennessee, who is trying to keep the focus on judicial nominations, responded to DeLay's statements saying, "We have a fair and independent judiciary today." Dr. Frist is fighting for his own controversial plan - dubbed the nuclear option - to end the Senate filibuster so that Democrats can't block votes on judicial nominees. Countering Frist's initiative is the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary - an alliance of human rights and civil liberties groups - which is mounting a public advertising campaign to save the filibuster and keep extreme right-wing nominees off the federal bench. The one point on which conservatives and liberals tend to agree is that in a fight over the judiciary the stakes are huge. "The future of the judiciary is perhaps the most important domestic priority facing the country at this time," says Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way. Speaking to reporters on a conference call last week, CFIJ leaders worried that conservatives were seeking total governmental control. "This president has the executive branch, the Republican Party has the legislative branch, and they aren't satisfied; they want the crown jewel of our democracy, and that is a fair and independent judiciary," says Nan Aron, head of the Alliance for Justice. The new religious coalition strongly backs Frist's filibuster fight, but sees its effort in bigger and broader terms. Pointing to the statement in the Declaration of Independence that the Creator is the source of inalienable rights, they say the US Constitution has a biblical basis and charge that the federal courts are seeking to turn America into a secular humanist nation by removing all mention of God from public life. In response, they assert the right to acknowledge God in various ways, from creationism and prayer in the schools to religious symbols in the public square. "Without a recognition of God, we lose our freedom of religion," says former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ousted from his post in November 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had placed in the state judicial building. A federal court ruled that the monument was unconstitutional, and the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. (...) The logic that freedom of religion requires a recognition of the Christian God is absolutely balls-backwards insanity, of the sort only severe derangement can bring about. A. |
|
13 Apr 05 - 06:45 PM (#1460455) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bill D I see...I see....and the remedy for a judiciary controlled by atheistic, activist liberals is to pack it with conservatives who simply look the other way when textbooks are censored for explaining Darwinism, and school prayers are required again. Yes....makes perfect sense. Where did I read something like that before? ahh, yes..." "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Edit that a little and you have a slogan that fits any conservative cause you need pushed. |
|
13 Apr 05 - 06:48 PM (#1460457) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: beardedbruce BillD... and that fits any liberal cause, as well. NOTE that it is EXTREMISM, not conservatism or liberalism that is the problem. |
|
13 Apr 05 - 07:07 PM (#1460471) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bill D indeed 'tis true....'cept I have heard no liberals expounding it. I hear many conservative pundits and politicians making arguments which are only lightly disguised. |
|
13 Apr 05 - 08:50 PM (#1460543) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Amos As far as I am concerned, extremism is the common mark of the beasts up and down the Administration's halls from the Oval Office down to the House and back. A |
|
13 Apr 05 - 09:14 PM (#1460557) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Ron Davies As Mudcatters may or may not know, each side feels under siege by the other. You feel besieged by the religious Right and they feel besieged by the secularization of society (e.g. battles over Christmas carols in school, ridiculing by Hollywood of Christians, a general coarsening of society--misogynistic and violent rap) etc. I read the Wall St Journal every day, and while the reporting gives lots of ammunition to use against Bushites (especially considering the source), the editorial page tells you what the Right is thinking. And this feeling of siege by secular forces is a favorite theme (along with the threat to Western civilization posed by trial lawyers). Let's have a little sober examination of the bill itself (provided by Bill D's link). Section 101 appears to say that nobody will be able to sue a government representative for acknowledging God publicly. That's all it says, as I read it. What am I missing? I would be far more concerned about Title II Sec 302, which seems to say that if a judge engages in any activity "that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge" this is grounds for removal. ANY activity? As determined by whom? As I noted in the 10 Commandments thread, there are far bigger fish to fry than sitting in a courtroom with a plaque you'd rather not see. Here, not the 10 Commandments plaque, is where the battle lines should be drawn. |
|
14 Apr 05 - 12:27 AM (#1460680) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: GUEST Well, Ron...that IS pretty close to what it says: 4 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 5 the following: 6 `` 1260. Matters not reviewable 7 ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, 8 the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, 9 by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to 10 the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Fed- 11 eral, State, or local government, or against an officer or 12 agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or 13 not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that 14 entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as 15 the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.''. ...but not 'exactly' what it says...in these matters, wording is everything. It says: IF a federal representative, even if acting in an "official capacity", asserts (my emphasis and word, as a translation of what 'acknowledge' implies) that a Transcendent Being (presumably the federal officer's version of such) is the ultimate (my word for 'sovereign') source of the rules by which we determine our entire governmental system, THEN anyone who objects to this...(and *I* claim, any actions taken BY the federal officer in accordance with his belief), cannot challenge the officer, his beliefs, or his actions. In my view, the key word in the entire thing is "acknowledgment"...the very word Judge Roy Moore used continuously in his defense. "Acknowledgment" presumes that position or opinion or concept at issue is not in doubt! I have no doubt that every suicide bomber in Israel is "acknowledging" his notion of "God's Will" when he heads off to Paradise with special belt strapped around his waist. Extreme silly example? Perhaps...but pass this bill and wait until that atheist fellow in California tries to object to prayer in school or the funneling of federal funds to a fundamentalist church...etc... "Sorry, the courts will not even HEAR that sort of case, and any judge who tries to halt a federal officer's decision which is based on religious conviction can be impeached." You see, if it is official that God is the source of our governmental system, then someone has to interpret and decide what God would think about an issue....and a federal official who follows the official interpretation of God's will is merely 'acknowledging' the rules, and we can't have silly lawsuits trying to upset what we have determined to be right, now, can we? IT IS ALL CIRCULAR AND INTERLOCKED! If truth is defined, then anyone who objects to the definition is against truth, and probably is a danger to the society and....... There are countries RIGHT NOW which operate on this model. Do we want to get even close to being one of those? A law like this is a step in that direction. Smarter people than me are looking at this attempt and trying to explain more clearly than I can why it is so dangerous. Bill D...in guest mode |
|
14 Apr 05 - 01:55 AM (#1460724) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: JohnInKansas Apparently above Guest (thanks Bill D) has been thinking along the same lines I have. He posted while I was checking a reference, but I'm gonna post mine anyway. The text of the bill (Senate version) is available as a .pdf at S520 1 ''§ 1260. Matters not reviewable 2 ''Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, 3 the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, 4 by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to 5 the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Fed 6 eral, State, or local government, or against an officer or 7 agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or 8 not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that 9 entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as 10 the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.''. Intent has little force at law. The LITERAL meaning of this act is that "God's law is superior to any laws, including the Constitution or those enacted by legislators." In other words, if any Federal, State, or Local government declares that "Slavery is God's Law" - as was stated frequently during a long and troublesome era in our recent past, the Supreme Court cannot even hear a protest. Further language in the bill asserts that NO COURT IN THE LAND can hear any protest, since this bill posits "GOD AS THE SOVEREIGN SOURCE OF LAW, LIBERTY AND GOVERNMENT." Who's God? As is pointed out in several "analyses" of this proposed law, the language included would permit a "true Christian(or true believer in any other religion?)" judge to impose BIBLICAL (God's?) LAW (sovereign to any enacted ordinances) to impose the death sentence for sodomy and/or adultery, and/or lying, or any other "immoral act" found somewhere "in the Bible," since the proposed act places "God's law" sovereign to all other law. (Which God?) (Which Bible?) (Who's Bible?) NO COURT WOULD BE PERMITTED TO REVIEW THIS SENTENCE, and any jurist who attempted to do so would be MANDATORILY removed from office. A couple of sites related to those favoring this bill cite Pat Robertson's statements from a very few years ago to the effect that those who act "according to God's law" (as Pat Roberson sees it) should be exempt from prosecution for murder of "those God doesn't like." With a sympathetic local judge, under this law, they could be, since no Federal Court would be permitted to review their sentence. They think that's a good thing. The United States TALIBAN at work. Of course, since it doesn't say which God local courts, say in Utah or Nevada, could rule that their God's law demands polygamous marriage, and no court could review the decision… Since this is not proposed as a Constitutional Amendment, and since it has been established that the Constitution does give the Supreme Court the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, it is reasonably (although not completely) certain that they would rule this law unconstitional, should it be enacted. If, as some hope, the current legislature gets the chance to pack the Court, they might not even accept a challenge. The Supreme Court CANNOT (usually) consider any matter not brought to them by a legal petition citing harm, so it could take a few years. But lets just back up a bit. The authority of the Supreme Court to review acts of Congress was first formally enunciated in a decision by Chief Justice John Marshall, by unanimous decision of the Court, on February 24, 1803. (Marbury v. Madison). The authority of the Supreme Court to review state legislation, under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, was not unequivocally enunciated until Fletcher v. Peck, March 16, 1810. Language in this act would potentially invalidate both these decisions, virtually eliminating the Supreme Court as a recourse against any future acts of any State or Federal legislature. 6 In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the 7 United States, a court of the United States may not rely 8 upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive 9 order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other ac 10 tion of any foreign state or international organization or 11 agency, other than English constitutional and common law 12 up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the 13 United States. To the extent that the US Constitution differs from "English constitutional and common law" it's pretty much eliminated(?). Specifically, any ammendment to the Constitution that has not previously been traced, in Court decisions, directly to English constitutional and common law is now rendered invalid. Welcome back slavery. 17 Any decision of a Federal court which has been made 18 prior to, on, or after the effective date of this Act, to the 19 extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from 20 Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 21 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not bind 22 ing precedent on any State court. This is, in fact if not in intent, a move to REMOVE THE SUPREME COURT and all subordinate Federal Courts as venues for appeal of any action by any local, state, or federal official, so long as they say "it's God's law." So if the TALIBAN occupies and takes over their own township, and elects a judge, NO COURT IN THE LAND can review that judge's decision that murdering Christians is "God's law.?" It does say that. John |
|
14 Apr 05 - 08:33 AM (#1460928) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Amos "Siege by secular forces" is an odd expression. Our government by definition IS a secular force. That's what it's SUPPOSED top be!! That's one of its VIRTUES. It's not a bug -- it's a feature! Sheesh. A |
|
14 Apr 05 - 11:37 AM (#1461111) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bill D and if, as some say, this proposed law is not that important and really doesn't do that much.....why are they trying so hard to enact it? Remember...the law was drafted by Roy Moore's lawyer, and those folks and those who agree with them do have an agenda and a goal....and it would be well for us to keep an eye on their long-term intentions. |
|
14 Apr 05 - 01:26 PM (#1461243) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: CarolC So it looks to me like this is how this one's going to play out (worst case scenario, hopefully)... - The law gets passed and signed - The cases begin to get tested and sent to the courts - The lower courts reject the law as unconstitutional - The cases pass through succedingly higher courts until they reach the Supreme Court - The Supreme Court strikes down the law as unconstitutional - All of the Judges who have made decisions reflecting the unconstitutionality of the law get impeached - New judges are elected and/or appointed - The new judges (who aren't about to play dead for the politicians) make the same decisions as the old judges - They keep impeaching the judges and appointing new ones until they realize they are fighting a losing battle and give up Does this sound like the most likely scenario to anyone else besides me (except for the scenario in which the law doesn't get passed, or signed)? |
|
14 Apr 05 - 03:11 PM (#1461340) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Amos Would 'twere so, Carol; but the Supreme Court has demonstrated once that under Scaglia it can be swayed by the interests of power and money. A |
|
14 Apr 05 - 05:18 PM (#1461465) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: DougR Duck, bobert, Amos, and so many others, TSIF. DougR |
|
14 Apr 05 - 05:40 PM (#1461486) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: CarolC ...quoth the captain of the Skytanic. |
|
14 Apr 05 - 11:22 PM (#1461779) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Ron Davies Perhaps the rhetoric here is (unsurprisingly) getting overheated. The way I read it, what the intent of Par. 1260 is is that nobody can sue a representative of the government for saying "so help me God", "in God we trust", "thanks be to God" etc. I think you are reading too much into it in alleging the law would trump the Constitution. An official may acknowledge God without claiming that 1) God's law overrides the Constitution and 2) he knows God's law, and here's what God says. If he does claim he knows, you can still sue. The sponsors are aware that there are people (Mudcatters even?) who would be in favor or removing "In God We Trust" from coins, "under God" from the Pledge, and possibly even suing a House Chaplain, for instance, who invoked God in his prayer. This is what Par. 1260 is aimed at--they see it as a defensive measure, believe it or not. These people are allegedly "strict constructionists". Any other interpretation would be against this philosophy. Amos-- I cited examples of why the religious Right feels under siege by a secular society. There are lots of others, if you want them. You can also read some of John Hardly's posts in the 10 Commandments thread. |
|
15 Apr 05 - 12:00 AM (#1461790) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bill D Ron..my question still stands....If that's all they want, why have a new law? Why involve congress and threaten impeachment of judges? Given the recent debates and protestations, you may perhaps excuse us for being nervous about ultimate intent. |
|
15 Apr 05 - 12:15 AM (#1461794) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Peace http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ForWhomTheBellTolls.htm This is a very seriouly flawed piece of legislation. Regardless of your views on what constitutes marriage, the legislation opens the door for God to be invoked as the semi-final arbiter of punishment. NB, the final arbiter will be a judge who INTERPRETS what God wants. What, with Bush already receiving direct communication form The Big Guy, I think Americans are facing some very sick possibilities down the road. IMO. |
|
15 Apr 05 - 01:45 AM (#1461827) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: heric They do it so they can tell (selected) constituents they tried. |
|
15 Apr 05 - 07:51 AM (#1462006) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bobert I gotta agree with BillD, Ton... Seems every time I listen to C-SPAN on the car radio I'm hearing Republican represenetatives and folks callin in demanding the power to impeach judges... I smell Karl Rove all over this issue... Bobert |
|
15 Apr 05 - 12:14 PM (#1462241) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: CarolC I would have to agree with Bill D's 15 Apr 05 - 12:00 AM post. This law is a ploy to try to make it easier for the religious right to get rid of judges who make decisions they don't like. They even said as much themselves when people like Tom Delay and others of the religious right said, after the courts' decisions in the Terri Schiavo case, that the judiciary was "a renegade judiciary" and "out of control", and people like DeLay came right out in the open and said that the judiciary would be punished and called into account for not complying with the wishes of the religious right in the Schiavo case. To not see this law for what it is... a blatant attempt to consolidate power within the legislative body of the religious right and to eliminate judicial oversight, is very near-sighted and, in my opinion, not very wise. |
|
15 Apr 05 - 12:31 PM (#1462259) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: JohnInKansas Mostly just background: The Weimar Constitution adopted by Germany after the first "Great War to End All Wars" was, and is, considered a "model Constitution." Many, at the time of its adoption, considered it superior even to the US one, although there were a few complaints even then, and history has shown some additional ones. For those interested, Selected Articles from the Weimar Constitution is one professor's extraction and summation of key articles. Weimar Constitution is an apparently complete version, with a few footnotes at the end that may be helpful. What many see as the cause of its fall was the provision for the assumption of emergency powers by the government in "times of great danger." The provision reportedly was included largely because of the fear of communism. (I'll not mention "Patriot Act" here.) Historians frequently point to The Nuremberg Laws on Citizenship and Race: September 15, 1935 as a key action in the rise of the Natzi regime. While it is important to know quite a lot of other history to make much sense of how this happened, it does fit into the context of what some people are concerned might happen here, in the US, and those who haven't read it recently might want to take a look – or not. Note that the above is a separate and distinct action from the simultaneous Nuremberg Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, September 15, 1935 From the "Blood and Honor" law: Article 1. 1) Marriages between Jews and subjects of the state of German or related blood are forbidden. Marriages nevertheless concluded are invalid, even if concluded abroad to circumvent this law. From the recently passed Kansas Constitutional Amendment: ''§ 16. Marriage. (a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. ''(b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.'' Note that those pushing the Kansas amendment stressed the importance of part (b) to prevent being forced to recognize a marriage legal elsewhere, if it would not be legal in Kansas under this law. This provision has already been ruled unconstitutional in a couple of other states, but those pushing this kind of law (apparently) simply don't care about the Constitution or don't understand it. It should also be noted that the Weimar Constitution specifically permits: Article 10 The Reich may, via legislation, establish principles for: 1. the rights and obligations of religious communities The US Constitution, on the other hand, includes: Amendment 1 (Ratified December 15, 1791) 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. Inclusion of part (b) of the Kansas ammendment recreates the situation for another "Dred Scott" trial in the Supreme Court, and it is quite probably a deliberate attempt to do so. The popular conception, among those in this movement is that Dred Scott was an example of a case in which the "activist Court" made a "bad activist decision" and changed the law. In fact, the Court ruled according to the law in existence and the decision had horrific results simply because the Court was NOT "activist" and did not – because there was no legal basis to do so – attempt to "write new law." Every case I have attempted to look at, in which the claim that "activist judges" have "changed the law" are in fact cases in which legislators, and voters, have in fact violated the law, as it exists, and the Courts have interpreted the law as it is.. The Courts generally are prohibited from bringing "facts not argued" into a decision, and for the most part they have not. If there's "activisim" involved, it largely comes from the lawyers who argue the cases, and politicians who demand "the right decisions" to suit their personal agenda. It is not at all difficult to find cases in which legislatures have enacted "illegal" laws. One trivial case is the Congressional approval of the NAFTA treaty allowing "free passage" of trucks with Mexican registry in the US. The free passage is not in question, but the "prohibition against ICC inspectors examining the truck/trailer registration," included in the treaty, means that a trailer stolen in the US and registered in Mexico (where proof of ownership is quite lax) cannot be recovered by the original US owner even if he finds it sitting at a truck stop in Los Angeles. He will be charged with theft if he tries to take it back. Informally, I've had indications from currently active drivers that more than half of the "Mexican" trailers operating in the western US still have the original US owners' tags on them and are presumedly stolen. One such was from a driver who named, and knows well, the driver who saw his own stolen trailer and was prevented by police and ICC from taking possission of it. I have no reason to disbelieve this specific account, although the numbers are subject to some exaggeration. Guess which Dred Scott decision the treaty contravenes. (Dred Scott has not, so far as I know, been "overturned," although many of the laws cited in the decision have been changed.) As noted, this is really background to the discussion at hand, but may help some to see why there is concern about the proposed changes. What I see as an essential and common factor in both the old German and recent US movements is that both define or attempt to define differences in the rights and privileges of "us" and "them." John |
|
15 Apr 05 - 01:47 PM (#1462312) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Amos John: Thanks for an intelligent, well-documented discussion! A pleasure. A |
|
15 Apr 05 - 02:18 PM (#1462326) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: JohnInKansas Amos - I'd like to think there's more, but this subject (and closely related ones) has been painfully present in my area for long enough that it will take some additional thought. John |
|
16 Apr 05 - 12:04 PM (#1462975) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Ron Davies Bill, Bobert, and others-- That's what I said in my post of 13 April 2005 9:14 PM--the main concern should be the clause stating that a judge can be removed for "any activity" exceeding his jurisdiction. ANY activity? As determined by whom? This clause alone warrants the bill's defeat. I do think the parallel to the start of the Nazi regime is a bit overdone. If we had lost a war and been occupied by the victorious powers in the past 20 years and if there was a depression going on, then possibly. But, as it is, it's unlikely. Having said that, there certainly are strong parallels between our "leader" and der Fuehrer on winning and keeping power (as I've pointed out in other threads)--especially the idea of winning based on hate and fear of "the other". But on of the first things a dictator would have to do is close down hotbeds of subversion (like Mudcat BS?) |
|
16 Apr 05 - 12:42 PM (#1463005) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Bill D I'm sure no one here at this "hotbed of subversion" (*grin*) pretends or expects that a wrong turn and decline of freedoms in the USA will bear a one-to-one correlation to Hitler's Germany. The danger some of us (well, me anyway) see is a redesign of the Republic which gives an appearance of continued democracy, while giving conservative elements something like a "thumb on the scales"........a system where laws, judges, tax laws, voting districts, media, etc., are all 'adjusted' so that basic control is always skewed in favor of one group. *IF* this happens, it is hard to say just how far some particular president and congress would try to take it....but I don't want to find out. We have a system where both sides can debate, argue and contend reasonably fairly....and if one gets off center, the other gets a chance.... I don't want to see it move to a position where bad decisions and reduced freedoms are institutionalized. |
|
20 May 05 - 07:14 PM (#1489611) Subject: RE: BS: On the Destruction of Justice From: Amos Carefully chosen to represent the highest thinking of the Bush administration, the following two judges are under consideration in the Senate. It is in defense of these appointments that the Republican forces in the Senate wish to use the so-called nuclear option to wipe out the time-honoured balance of powers afforded by filibuster rules. "The Senate is currently debating the nominations of two judges — Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen. Here is a summary of how bad they are and why it is important that they don't become federal judges. Janice Rogers Brown, a Justice on the California Supreme Court, would threaten the most basic protections for workers and the environment that have kept our country strong since the Great Depression. She follows a radical judicial philosophy, (often called "Constitution in Exile") that says courts have a duty to block Congress from interfering with a corporation's "right" to profitably pollute, or an employer's "right" to demand unlimited hours at any wage from their employees. On the state Supreme Court she has attacked California's anti-discrimination statute, affordable housing laws, fees levied against major urban polluters, and laws that protects whistleblowers from retaliation by their employers and consumers from corporate fraud. Pricilla Owen, a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court, has been repeatedly admonished by her own conservative colleagues for what Attorney General Alberto Gonzales described as her "unconscionable judicial activism." As a candidate for the Supreme Court job Owen defied ethics standards by accepting substantial campaign contributions from giant corporations including Enron and Halliburton and then later issuing rulings in their favor. In case after case where individual rights came into conflict with corporate profit, Owen has sided with the latter — including cases where a liquor vendors' negligence left a nine-year-old with permanent brain damage and where major companies have argued their right to unfettered profit should exempt them from all local environmental laws. " (Descritpions from MoveOn.org). A |
