Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alabama Ayatollahs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alabama Ayatollahs

    This is so unfreakingbelievable! This clown of an Alabama Representative introduced the following bill, on February 11, 2004. Read it over and understand just what the hell this does! In short, it would disallow the Supreme Court to hear any case regarding any government employee, or body, declaring that God is the sole source of law, liberty and government. Further, it would allow the impeachment of any Supreme Court justice that would break this law, by hearing such a case.

    So, if this were law, a President, a Governor, a Mayor, a city council, et cetera could conceivably declare a number of laws to be prejudicially enforced, or to remain unenforced given his belief in "God". The Supreme Court, if it chose to hear a court case to force the President, et al, to equally enforce the laws (i.e. carry out his/their constitutional duty), could be impeached, en masse, essentially wiping out one of the three pillars of our constitutional series of checks and balances. To be replaced by what? A theocracy?!?!?

    And to think that this buffoon was a judge, for a few years, too! Jeebus, if anyone here knows anybody in Alabama, ask them if everyone in that state is so freaking stupid to allow this idiot another term? He's coming up for reelection. Do the right thing and drop him in Mobile Bay with an anchor for a cufflink.


    A BILL

    To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
    • Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


    • This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2004'.


    TITLE I--JURISDICTION



    SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.


    • (a) IN GENERAL-

      • (1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:


    `Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable


    • `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.'.

      • (2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

      • `1260. Matters not reviewable.'.

    • (b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.


    SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.


    • (a) IN GENERAL-

      • (1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:


    `Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review


    • `Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district court shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'.

    • (2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

      • `1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'.

    • (b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.


    TITLE II--INTERPRETATION



    SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.


    • 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.


    TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT



    SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.


    • Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.


    SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.


    • To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--

      • (1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

      • (2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.
    END
    I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

  • #2
    Hello,

    Well, it's either that bill or facing ACLU's purification death squads...

    If ACLU didn't do everything in its power to try and rip the Christianity out of America, then this bill wouldn't be even proposed at all.

    Therefore I perfectly understand why this bill was proposed in the first place.

    However, in the end, I would have to reject this bill on the basis of US Constitution....

    Dan
    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

    "Aim small, miss small."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cheetah772
      Well, it's either that bill or facing ACLU's purification death squads...

      If ACLU didn't do everything in its power to try and rip the Christianity out of America, then this bill wouldn't be even proposed at all.
      Believe it, or not, but the ACLU is not trying to rip Christianity out of America. You could well say though, that it is trying to rip it out of American Government as well it should!

      Originally posted by Cheetah772
      Therefore I perfectly understand why this bill was proposed in the first place.
      Oh...I understand why he proposed it, too. He's a religious nut, and he's scared. This would basically allow people like Roy Moore to get away with what he tried to get away with, before the Alabama Supreme Court kicked him out.

      Originally posted by Cheetah772
      However, in the end, I would have to reject this bill on the basis of US Constitution....
      Thank you, Dan. This is why I still have hope for you...
      I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by JAMiAM
        Believe it, or not, but the ACLU is not trying to rip Christianity out of America. You could well say though, that it is trying to rip it out of American Government as well it should!
        That's debatable...

        Oh...I understand why he proposed it, too. He's a religious nut, and he's scared. This would basically allow people like Roy Moore to get away with what he tried to get away with, before the Alabama Supreme Court kicked him out.
        A religious nut? Be careful or I might actually call you a secular or atheist nut!

        To me, the secularism is a religion just like the Christianity, its doctrine is based on God (or gods) does not exist at all, which can't be proven.

        Thank you, Dan. This is why I still have hope for you...
        That's one very terrifying thought, actually agreeing with you might just accelerate the end of world as we know it....

        Dan
        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

        "Aim small, miss small."

        Comment


        • #5
          LOL, after seeing stuff like this do people really wonder why I distrust the folks running this country?
          "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

          Comment


          • #6
            Hello,

            I wonder if somebody who's an atheist or a secularist proposing a bill removing every reference to God in the federal or state government and prohibiting the courts to rule in favor of the Christian groups, would it be outrageous?

            Be careful what you wish...

            That's why I reject this bill, I wouldn't wish this on anybody...

            Dan
            Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

            "Aim small, miss small."

            Comment


            • #7
              Justice Antonin Scalia (one of the five people that elected the sitting president) believes that the Constitution reflects natural or divinely inspired law and the state is an instrument of God. "That consensus has been upset by the emergence of democracy...the reactions of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectivley as possible." January 2000. Quoted by Kevin Phillips; the words in italics are mine.
              Last edited by Brevet; 22 Feb 04, 14:04.
              And we are here as on a darkling plain
              Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
              Where ignorant armies clash by night.


              Matthew Arnold

              Comment


              • #8
                How would one know what "God" thinks of any mortal laws... if one cannot talk to "God." It's just like those crazy southerners (Yes... crazy southerners) to stir up some bill and take their religion way too seriously. In the end... with all God has to do, what makes them think that he cares if some cheap statue of the Ten Commandments is removed from a courthouse. That's part of the whole problem in the South and it is a marked difference between the North and South and the way things are carried out. It leads right out of the Civil War.

                If anyone would ever even think of passing this bill they should be done in by treason. Then... they could really be judged by God. Hah. Hah. Hah.
                Furthermore, they had calculated that if 25,000 of them died for every one of us, they would finish us first, for they were many and we were but few.
                -Hernan Cortez

                The Pacific is our ocean. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. That power is and will forever be the American Republic.
                -Senator Albert J. Beveridge, 56th Congress

                Comment


                • #9
                  I believe the Constitution acknowledges the existence of a God by tolerating the practice of religion. Yet, it also forbids the government from either establishing or promoting a particular religion. Placing a statute of the Ten Commandments in a Court House was appropriately interpreted as a violation of the latter.

                  It is the priority of the American people to ensure the balance is not tipped in either direction. Failure will likely lead to greater restrictions on the freedom of speech and other rights. The bill proposed in Alabama seeks to remove one of the instruments required to "hopefully" maintain the balance between tolerating religion and preventing the promotion of a religion by the state.
                  "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to practice their religion. Go ahead, I really don't care. That is just as long as it doesn't effect me. See, these problems were meant to be avoided over two centuries ago in the constitution. Some people just can't seem to get literate fast enough.
                    Furthermore, they had calculated that if 25,000 of them died for every one of us, they would finish us first, for they were many and we were but few.
                    -Hernan Cortez

                    The Pacific is our ocean. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. That power is and will forever be the American Republic.
                    -Senator Albert J. Beveridge, 56th Congress

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Deltapooh
                      The bill proposed in Alabama seeks to remove one of the instruments required to "hopefully" maintain the balance between tolerating religion and preventing the promotion of a religion by the state.
                      This bill was proposed in the US House of Representatives. Representative Aderholt, was elected by, and is serving for Alabama. This is something that's being floated at the national level.
                      I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cortez
                        How would one know what "God" thinks of any mortal laws... if one cannot talk to "God." It's just like those crazy southerners (Yes... crazy southerners) to stir up some bill and take their religion way too seriously. In the end... with all God has to do, what makes them think that he cares if some cheap statue of the Ten Commandments is removed from a courthouse. That's part of the whole problem in the South and it is a marked difference between the North and South and the way things are carried out. It leads right out of the Civil War.
                        Although God does not "talk" to us today, we still can read His messages written in the Bible which applies to all of us.

                        The southerners were not crazy religious nuts. The North had some religious nuts, let's not forget John Brown and his followers, are you going to say he wasn't a religious person? A bunch of northern abolitionists were very religious people, are you going to tell me the North wasn't really crazy?

                        If anyone would ever even think of passing this bill they should be done in by treason. Then... they could really be judged by God. Hah. Hah. Hah.
                        How is it treason when somebody wants to acknowledge God in all capacities including the official capacity of the federal and state governments?

                        Of course, I might consider it treason if anybody denies the existence of God and completely ignores the Christian heritage America has. I might consider it treason if anybody tries to pass a bill banning all references to God and prohibiting the courts to rule in favor of Christian groups.

                        Dan
                        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                        "Aim small, miss small."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cheetah772
                          The southerners were not crazy religious nuts. The North had some religious nuts, let's not forget John Brown and his followers, are you going to say he wasn't a religious person? A bunch of northern abolitionists were very religious people, are you going to tell me the North wasn't really crazy?
                          John Brown was a psychotic child-abuse victim who frequently spoke of himself in the third person in personal letters. Maybe a religious zealot, but more of his drive was because of his past, not a belief in god.

                          Originally posted by Cheetah772
                          How is it treason when somebody wants to acknowledge God in all capacities including the official capacity of the federal and state governments?
                          Treason because it says just what you did. Why should God be included in an official capacity within the U.S. government? I'm not trying to ignore any Christian heritage, but in order for the government to function in its Democratic and Free form personal preferences must be just that, personal. As it is a government for the people and by the people, there should be no favoritism towards one side.

                          Me? I'm Roman Catholic. Heh.
                          Furthermore, they had calculated that if 25,000 of them died for every one of us, they would finish us first, for they were many and we were but few.
                          -Hernan Cortez

                          The Pacific is our ocean. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. That power is and will forever be the American Republic.
                          -Senator Albert J. Beveridge, 56th Congress

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I live in Alabama and I can say he will probably get re-elected. He can even point to this bill he sponsored to show he is thinking right.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cheetah772

                              How is it treason when somebody wants to acknowledge God in all capacities including the official capacity of the federal and state governments?



                              Dan
                              Uphold the constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (or something like that)
                              ...a man that can stand up for a principle and sit down on his own stool.
                              -the Firesign Theatre

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X