Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CONSTITUTION RESTORATION ACT “CRA” 2004
Foundation For Moral Law ^ | 13 Feb 04 | Judge Roy Moore

Posted on 02/13/2004 6:29:36 PM PST by Federalist 78

Questions and Answers

ON THE

CONSTITUTION RESTORATION ACT

"CRA" 2004

Q.
What is the purpose of this bill?

A. The purpose of the CRA is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that jurisdiction
permitted them by the Constitution of the United States . The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the "organic law" of our Country by United States Code Annotated.
The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government. The acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal courts.

The CRA also protects and preserves the Constitution of the United States by restricting federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign jurisdictions and international law as the supreme law of our land.

Q.
Does this bill reverse Supreme Court precedent?

A. To the extent that any decision of the United States Supreme Court or that of any federal district court made prior to or after the effective date of the Act prohibits the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government, such precedent would not be binding on state courts.

Q.
Does this bill intrude into the constitutional powers of the federal judiciary?

A. No.
Use by Congress of Article III regulation of the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts is provided by the Constitution as a check on the Judicial Branch when it exceeds its jurisdiction. When federal courts prohibit the acknowledgment of God they deny the very source of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our founding fathers specifically recognized in the Declaration of Independence as unalienable rights given by God.

To prohibit a state official from recognizing God is a violation of the Tenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
If Congress cannot make a law restricting states from the acknowledgment of God under the First Amendment, how can the Supreme Court enforce a law which Congress cannot make?

The CRA would restore the balance of power among the various branches of government and restore the fundamental precepts upon which our Constitution and government is based.

Q.
Does the CRA promote an establishment of religion?

A. No.
The right to acknowledge God is not and never has been the establishment of religion.
According to the United States Congress, in the 1954 legislation placing "Under God" in the Pledge: "A distinction must be made between the existence of religion as an institution and a belief in the sovereignty of God." The actions of state and federal officials from the adoption and implementation of the First Amendment illustrate that the acknowledgment of God was never intended to be prohibited by the First Amendment. Even the First Congress (which agreed on the words of the First Amendment) on September 25, 1789, adopted a resolution on that very day asking President Washington to declare a day of thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God for the peaceful manner in which the Constitution was formed. From that time to the present, both state and federal officials have continuously acknowledged God in oaths, prayers, and official ceremonies.
Eight days after Congress requested the president to declare a day of thanksgiving and prayer, President Washington did exactly that on October 3, 1789, in his first Presidential Proclamation, stating, "Whereas, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor . . .."

Q.
Does the CRA deny other faiths in America ?

A. No.
The freedom of conscience and right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience are the very objects guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution regarding the First Amendment stated: "The rights of conscience are indeed beyond the reach of human power, they are given by God and cannot be encroached upon by any human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural as well as of revealed religion."

Q.
What are the practical effects of CRA on pending legislation?

A. This bill would cover all present bills before Congress regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments, National Motto "In God We Trust," and all other acknowledgments of God. Furthermore, this bill would preserve freedom of conscience and equal treatment under law guaranteed by the Constitution by restricting federal intrusion into our right to acknowledge God. People are never to be judged on their thoughts in a court of law and the right to believe as one chooses is a right given by God, not by government.

Q.
Does the CRA affect the religious test provisions of Article VI?

A. No.
The right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of one’s conscience should never be used as a test or standard for people to seek or hold public office.

Q.
What would prevent the United States Supreme Court from declaring the CRA unconstitutional?

A. The authority of Congress under Article III is specifically enumerated and cannot be questioned by another branch of government.
Should the Supreme Court resort to the law of foreign nations or the European Court of Human Rights for authority, impeachment and removal from office are appropriate remedies.
Conflict between the various branches of government is not without historic precedent.
The control of funding and power of impeachment are traditional controls over the Judiciary by Congress.

Separation of powers is a critical part of our Constitution; nevertheless, something more egregious happens when a branch of government intrudes its powers into the freedom of conscience to acknowledge God secured by the First Amendment. James Madison spoke of such an intrusion when he stated in the Memorial and Remonstrance: "The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power may be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people.
The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves."

Thomas Jefferson also spoke of such an intrusion in his Bill for Religious Freedom when he stated: "That to suffer the Civil Magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and restrain the profession or propagation of opinions on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty."
This portion of Jefferson ’s Bill

for religious freedom was, in fact, quoted by the United States Supreme Court in 1878 in United States v. Reynolds as a violation of what properly belonged to the church and not the state.

Q. What is the strength of the CRA?

A. The CRA will be supported by all those who oppose judicial tyranny as well as all
those who respect individual rights and the right of every state to acknowledge God.
This is not restricted to a political party or persuasion.

Q.
Why is the English common law not excluded from consideration of federal courts in interpreting and applying the Constitution?

A. The common law is incorporated by reference into the United States Constitution, in the 7th Amendment and remains a foundation of American jurisprudence and an integral part of the organic law of the land. Our American common law is largely derived from the more than millennia-long tradition of English common law and constitutionalism, including the Magna Carta.

Q.
What is the meaning
of " acknowledgment of God" in the CRA?

A. The public recognition of God by state and federal authorities exists today in oaths, mottos , documents, prayers, monuments, and various other medium. Even in our "organic law," the Declaration of Independence, according to the United States Code Annotated, God is the very source of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and government authority. The CRA would preserve and restore the Godly basis of our law and government.

Q. What does the right to acknowledge God have to do with foreign law?

A. The acknowledgment of God and absolute standards distinguishes us from other nations and political systems. The source of American law cannot be replaced by laws of foreign jurisdictions which base their authority on secular principles.

Q.
How does the CRA affect each and every individual?

A. In 1952, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Zorach v. Clauson that, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a belief in a Supreme Being."
During the last fifty years, federal courts have excluded prayers in public schools, Ten Commandments in public buildings, manger scenes at Christmas, and even the Pledge of Allegiance in school classrooms. Even as late as 1984, the United States Supreme Court struck down a state statute in Alabama which allowed a moment of silence "or voluntary prayer." These examples have one thing in common: "the acknowledgment of God." The CRA would restore our right to acknowledge God and stop the ACLU and other liberal groups from bringing frivolous suits simply because they are "offended" because there is a God and a higher law. Our children would be free to pray before eating lunch in their schools, public officials would be free to acknowledge the God upon Whom they take their oath, and the moral basis of our law regarding marriage could not be altered by judicial activism.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cra
 

 

108TH CONGRESS

2ND SESSION

S. 2082

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

Mr. Shelby (for himself, Mr. Miller, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Graham of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on ______________

 

____________________________

 

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 Restora- tion Act of 2004".

 

TITLE I---JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

  1. In General.---(1) Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol-lowing new section:

"§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 Fed- eral, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), by reason of that ele- ment's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sov-ereign source of law, liberty, or government.".

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

"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 the 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 the enact- ment of this Act.

 

SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.

(a) In General.-(1) Chapter 85 of title 28, United State Code, is amended by adding at the end of the fol- lowing new section:

"1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks juris- diction to review

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the dis- trict 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) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

"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 the 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 the enact- ment 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 English constitutional and 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 rea- son 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 re- moved upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.


1 posted on 02/13/2004 6:29:36 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org; MHGinTN; hocndoc
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.01546:

Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 1546 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1546

To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 1, 2003

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

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 `Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF ABORTION-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1370. Removal of jurisdiction over abortion-related cases

`(a) IN GENERAL- The district courts of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any abortion-related case.

`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `abortion-related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to abortion that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of contents for chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1370. Removal of jurisdiction over abortion-related cases.'.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF ABORTION-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL CLAIMS COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1510. Removal of jurisdiction over abortion-related cases

`(a) IN GENERAL- The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any abortion-related case.

`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `abortion-related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to abortion that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of contents for chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1510. Removal of jurisdiction over abortion-related cases.'.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply to cases filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.


2 posted on 02/13/2004 6:33:31 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED

Thomas Jefferson is generally recognized by most historians as the principle author of the Declaration of Independence. Our Founding Fathers created a federal system of three branches, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
On Aug. 18, 1821, Jefferson wrote to Charles Hammond and expressed his fear that, of the three branches of government which were created, the one he feared the most was the federal judiciary in these words:
"The federal judiciary is ?working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)."
Decisions of the federal judiciary over the last half century have resulted in the theft of our Judeo-Christian heritage, a brief sampling is as follows:
• Enacting "a wall of separation between church and state"
• Banning nondenominational prayer from public schools
• Removing the Ten Commandments from public school walls
• Removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance
Congress should use Article III, Section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution to recover what has been stolen. Under the heading "Jurisdiction of Supreme and Appellate Courts," the clause says:
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Over the last 200 years, Congress has exercised this authority to except certain areas from the jurisdiction of the federal court system. In Turner vs. Bank of North America 4 Dall. (4 U.S.,8(1799)),the Supreme Court concluded that the federal courts derive their judicial power from Congress, not the Constitution.
In Cary vs. Curtis 3 How, (44 U.S.), 236 (1845), a statute made final the decision of the secretary of the Treasury in certain tax deductions. The statute was challenged as an unconstitutional deprivation of the judicial power of the courts. The Supreme Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the federal courts (inferior to the Supreme Court) was in the sole power of Congress.
In Sheldon vs. Sill 8 How (49 U.S. 441 (1850)), involved the validity of the assignee clause of the Judicial Act of 1789 restricting such action to establish federal court jurisdictions. The Supreme Court sustained the power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts.
In Ex Parte McCardle 6 Wall. (73 U.S.) 318 (1868), the Supreme Court accepted review on certiorari of a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the circuit court. Congress, fearful the Supreme Court would honor the writ, passed a law repealing the act which authorized the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
In Lauf vs. E.G. Shinner & Co. 303 U.S. 323, 330 (1938), the Supreme Court upheld the power of Congress to define and limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States in the form restrictions on the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes under the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932.
In Lockerty v. Phillips 319 U.S. 182 (1943), Congress provided for a special court to appeal price control decisions under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The Supreme Court sustained this restriction.
One of the outstanding Constitutional scholars in the Senate is Robert Byrd, West Virginia Democrat. In 1979, in order to once again allow voluntary prayer in public schools, he introduced a law to except this subject from the federal court system under Article III, 2.2. Unfortunately, it was not enacted into law.
In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

3 posted on 02/13/2004 6:36:39 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; Dataman
Feb. 13, 2004 – Alabama’s Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville) join with former Chief Justice Roy S. Moore in introducing the Constitution Restoration Act 2004 to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States.
4 posted on 02/13/2004 6:41:05 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
According to an article I read some time ago, Judge Roy Moore might make a Presidential run. He may not be charismatic, but he'd certainly straighten up the courts. This bears some thought.
5 posted on 02/13/2004 6:51:09 PM PST by ETERNAL WARMING (SHUT THE DOOR IN 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING
Bump!!!
6 posted on 02/13/2004 7:16:56 PM PST by TheSpottedOwl (Until Kofi Annan rides the Jerusalem RTD....nothing will change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Ten Commandments in public buildings, manger scenes at Christmas

It never ceases to amaze me that people think the Ten Commandments and manger scenes to be "nondenominational".

The district courts of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any abortion-related case.

Uh... enacting this statute would have the effect of ensuring that Roe v. Wade could never be overturned, because no subsequent case could ever make its way up through the courts (and permit the USSC to issue a ruling contrary to Roe).

7 posted on 02/13/2004 7:17:45 PM PST by SedVictaCatoni (You keep nasty chips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni
HTML>

Uh...

Timothy D. Terrell, Pro-Life Principles II: The Right-To-Life Amendment. July 30, 2002

There is no law against murder in the Constitution-that is not the purpose of that document, or even of the federal government. The Constitution of the United States leaves criminal law to the states, and was never intended to make all crimes into federal issues. Any prohibition against abortion ought to be a state concern, just as prohibitions against any form of murder are state concerns. Pro-lifers who want to use a federal instead of a state route to ending abortion are undermining the intent of the original Constitution. http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0207/020730terrell.shtml

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.

For the pro-life cause to truly succeed without undermining the very freedoms that protect life, it must return to principle and uphold our Founder's vision of federalism as an essential component of the American system. Undermining federalism ultimately can only undermine the very mechanism that protects the right to life. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403b.htm

We've got 27 amendments, the most recent as of 1992. Amending the Constitution is a long-term process, requiring two-thirds supermajorities in both the House and the Senate, plus ratification by three-fourths of the states. A number of Right to Life constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress, but to date, no definite action has been taken. Any amendment should focus on the federal courts where the problem is and return the issue to the several states where it belongs!

Republican presidents appointed seven members of the current Supreme Court. Supreme Court judge, Stevens, born April 20, 1920, is 4 years older than Rehnquist. The remaining seven are much younger. Replacements may wear the conservative label, but will they rule according to the U.S. Constitution, or according to judicial precedent? Will they follow the "activist" opinions, or the "restraint" of the Constitution?

8 posted on 02/13/2004 7:25:21 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the "organic law" of our Country by United States Code Annotated.

FYI--remember this discussion a while back?
9 posted on 02/13/2004 7:27:39 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleMamaMT
PING
10 posted on 02/13/2004 7:28:16 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
The 1996 Winter edition of The National Lawyers Association Review links the Declaration of Independence to The U.S. Constitution:
Constitutions and Bills of Right are but vain and futile barricades against tyranny unless, as our Declaration of Independence says-they are firmly founded in and upon the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted....
The National Lawyers Association takes the position that there is a legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution based, in part, on the following:
A. Our Founding Fathers intended for the Declaration to be thefoundation for the Government that was being established.
B. The language in the Declaration of Independence itself makes it clear that it is to be a vital and necessary part of the government.
C. The language in the Constitution acknowledges its legal connection or relationship with the Declaration.
D. The Declaration has been referenced by various federal courts in hundreds of decisions including several decisions by the United States Supreme Court.
E. Legislation by Congress admitting states into the union acknowledges and confirms that the principles set forth in the Declaration constitute the foundation of the government of America.
The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration.
A. The United States Code Annotated treats the Declaration as a part of the organic law of the government of the United States of America.
1. The Preface to the United States Code - Annotated states that "this code is the official restatement in convenient form of the general and permanent laws of the United States in force December 7, 1925...." The Preface also states that there is also contained therein a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution with Amendments.

The Preamble introduces and explains the purpose of The U.S. Constitution, and links it to The Declaration of Independence:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice...and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...."

11 posted on 02/13/2004 7:30:00 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Thanks for the information-- there was quite a heated discussion a few weeks ago about whether the Declaration of Independence was even in the US code. A terrific freeper went to the library in a snow storm to help verify that this was true and your information is another confirmation of that fact.

The US Code that is available online from the federal government is not compelete and didn't show the Declaration. So some folks thought it wasn't part of the Code.
12 posted on 02/13/2004 7:34:39 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
Critical Pro-Life PING.

In 2001-2002, Congress used its authority on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

In post 2, we have: “Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003” (Introduced in House), which would bring about “REMOVAL OF ABORTION-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.”

THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS TO ISSUES SUCH AS ABORTION, SODOMY....ALL IT TAKES IS A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF BOTH HOUSES!

I hope that what this means is that in fact, We The People who believe that we ALL are endowed by our “Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”; Who are Pro-Life and Pro-America DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN ROE V WADE, OR WAIT FOR A LIFE AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION to end the AMERICAN HOLOCAUST

Lets engage Federalist 78 and ask for more specifics. Also I'd appreciate it if it could be distilled down so we could more easily see how this directly would work to help the unborn.

13 posted on 02/13/2004 7:53:09 PM PST by cpforlife.org (The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Solves this problem - Bush Administration Defends Seeking Partial-Birth Abortion ...
14 posted on 02/13/2004 8:11:37 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Federalist78,

Thanks for posting this. I am a layman and need some help here. Could you please put this into basic terms how the Legislature can effectively stop, or limit the Judicial Tyranny that has caused the murder of millions of Americans waiting to be born?

If this is done by a simple majority in Congress, what the heck are we waiting for?!

Would you agree that if enough people understood this they would flood Congress with demands for action?!
15 posted on 02/13/2004 8:18:06 PM PST by cpforlife.org (The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Will read later
16 posted on 02/13/2004 8:38:38 PM PST by sully777 (Our descendants will be enslaved by political expediency and expenditure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
But instead of replying to my comment, you apparently just pasted in some boilerplate from somewhere or other. If the Supreme Court is denied from ever hearing any further cases on abortion, then Roe will continue to stand.

It is true that if district courts could not hear abortion-related cases, then if a state legislature passed a law outlawing abortion, nobody could obtain an injunction from a local federal district court barring enforcement of the law. But if Roe remained, it would be a powerful political bar to state legislatures enacting abortion-ban bills.

17 posted on 02/13/2004 8:48:02 PM PST by SedVictaCatoni (You keep nasty chips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
There seems to be some confusion here as to the nature of the USCA. The United States Code Annotated is not the same thing as the United States Code. The USC is the official statement by the federal government of the codified laws of the United States. The USCA is a convenient reference form published by the West Publishing Company, with annotations added to explain how courts have interpreted the laws contained within. It isn't really the official statement of the laws, merely a useful reference to them.

If West has decided to include the Declaration of Independence in the USCA, as well as a statement that they're considered important, that's nice and all, but that's not the same thing as the federal government declaring it the law of the land.

A library probably has a copy of the USCA. The Code which the federal government has made available online is probably the official USC - i.e., no commentary added.

18 posted on 02/13/2004 8:56:17 PM PST by SedVictaCatoni (You keep nasty chips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni
I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying in your post. If federal courts were barred from hearing abortion-related cases, then Roe would be irrelevant, except to the extent that state courts might choose to keep it alive within their own jurisdictions. But its hardly a foregone conclusion that all state courts would be inclined to do so. So the act would effectively nullify the sweeping effect of Roe vs. Wade.
19 posted on 02/13/2004 9:19:43 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: inquest
But this bill would only prevent the courts from hearing any further abortion cases. Roe would remain the law of the land (that the United States Constitution grants a right to an abortion), and no subsequent case could come along to overturn it.
20 posted on 02/13/2004 9:30:57 PM PST by SedVictaCatoni (You keep nasty chips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni
A subsequent case wouldn't need to overturn it. Regardless of whether somebody would still consider it "the law of the land", it would be completely ineffective. State passes law against abortion, state courts uphold it, nothing can be done about it, because it doesn't go any further than the state level.
21 posted on 02/13/2004 9:38:39 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni
The USC online is missing the organic law section which was added in the 1890s. It is part of the code. The person who looked it up found the Code in several volumes with the first volume being the organic law. The federal government online version of the code gets updated every few years or so to show only the active laws. The House of Representatives version of the code online contains the organic law section and the Declaration.

I took your statement that the Declaration was in the West version as reinforcing the fact that in the 19th century the the Declaration of Independence was added because all federal law [is supposed to] spring(s) from it.
22 posted on 02/13/2004 9:47:47 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni
But this bill would only prevent the courts from hearing any further abortion cases. Roe would remain the law of the land (that the United States Constitution grants a right to an abortion), and no subsequent case could come along to overturn it.

It seems the bill specifically allows for the reversal of unconstitutional decisions:

Use by Congress of Article III regulation of the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts is provided by the Constitution as a check on the Judicial Branch when it exceeds its jurisdiction.

At the very least the legislature could return the decision to the states and the SC could do nothing about it.

23 posted on 02/14/2004 1:16:47 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Thanks for the ping, hedgetrimmer. I'm working this weekend so I will read this later. I perused it briefly, but it sounds like a move in the right direction.
24 posted on 02/14/2004 7:23:01 AM PST by EagleMamaMT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Rep. Blunt Seeks Repeal of McCain-Feingold-Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 63

25 posted on 02/14/2004 7:44:31 AM PST by The_Eaglet (Opportunity: http://www.peroutka2004.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78

Some more commentary can be found here; http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/feb2004/restoration.htm.

I think we need to get on this because it is good first, and because the opponents and critics will have to declare their allegiance to the contrary.


26 posted on 07/11/2004 9:20:45 AM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78; Congressman Billybob
I think it is necessary to amend the Constitution to limit and define the appellate powers of Article III courts.

It is a foolish waste of time to fight a five-year battle to ban so-called "marriages" between members of the same sex when the courts will just be right back with another outrage as soon as that amendment passes.

We should save our energy for a single, comprehensive amendment which would forbid the use of language in the preamble "blessings of Liberty", "general welfare" as the substantive basis for ruling State laws unconstitutional.

27 posted on 07/11/2004 9:27:54 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni
But if Roe remained, it would be a powerful political bar to state legislatures enacting abortion-ban bills.

Technically, ROE would never be overturned. But no one would be able to sue a state government for any particular "infraction" of ROE. ROE would become a dead letter. Of course, ROE would ALREADY be a dead letter if the governors and presidents since 1973 actually understood their constitutional role: namely, to ignore patently criminal pronouncements from the Supreme Court.

28 posted on 10/17/2004 4:14:30 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson