CONSTITUTION RESTORATION ACT “CRA” 2004

Foundation For Moral Law ^ | 13 Feb 04 | Judge Roy Moore

[inquest]

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.

[hedgetrimmer]

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.

[Dataman]

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.

[EagleMamaMT]

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.

[The_Eaglet]

Rep. Blunt Seeks Repeal of McCain-Feingold-Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 63

[Final Authority]

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.

[Jim Noble]

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.

[Arthur McGowan]

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.