Posted on 09/09/2004 10:26:29 PM PDT by risk
Great posts...and thanks for the ping!
Furthermore, I oppose HR 3799 on the grounds that it violates our first amendment. It does so in a very subtle manner that would nonetheless empower the men behind the well-meaning but misguided religious right in America to pursue their Christian theocratic agenda. It is no accident that men such as Pat Robertson, Roy Moore, and Jerry Falwell are using their influence to push legislation with this innocuous sounding but dangerous phrase in section 1260:
`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.'.The phrase "acknowledgement of God" would apply to legislation, official conduct, and court rulings.
What this means is that America would become vulnerable to those who would establish government power to impose religion on its citizens.
While this legislation does not specifically indicate a preference for a particular religious doctrine, it would break down strict limits on our government's authority to establish religion as the full basis (not just the inspiration for) our laws.
In any case, what it advertises to the unsuspecting American citizen is better pursued by enforcing our existing law. Adding new laws to support laws that aren't being enforced will do little to help.
I find the clause regarding English common law somewhat confusing, as well. In any case, the Constitution is the highest law in the land, and if we find that judges and legislators are invoking foreign powers, then we may need to consider an amendment to the Constitution itself. I believe this is your primary concern. There again, I do not know that another amendment would make the others more clear in this respect.
When we need the restraint that most unsuspecting citizens believe that HR 3799 places on our government, it will already be too late. As our law and practice stand today, CFR notwithstanding, I believe our best interests have usually been served with respect to the first amendment. A law like 3799 would permit a Jerry Falwell to start advocating laws that put far too much power in the hands of the state to advocate specific religious faiths. What these men want is more power for government. The Constitution, including its first amendment, is all about limiting such power.
Like disarming Americans to keep them safe, putting religion in government is a simplistic solution to a problem that can't be solved that way.
I don't think he's worth it. I just snagged his editorial as a springboard for attacking the AWB. I wanted to post an article where most of the arguments for it were presented unadulterated. Other than that, I think we've helped this guy get more readership than he's had in the last year just by getting him his own FR thread. That's the last time I do that for him!
LAW ABIDING people would be able to own machine guns, damn right.
Congratulations one and all ~ good job!
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Thanks, Blackie. I'm happy to see you up and about, posting and appearing healthy.
Absolutely. And NOTHING would change - not a thing. Crime would remain the province of CRIMINALS -who would continue to arm themselves with illegally obtained handguns.
If the "black market" demanded full auto weapons, they would appear, JUST LIKE THAT. Heroin is illegal, but available.
Liberals simply cannot comprehend, it's about the INDIVIDUAL, not the gun.
Practically speaking, they are the exclusive province of hobbyists.
Ideally, full auto weapons should be as easily available as pump shotguns.
Damn, looks like I need to practice my right to keep and bear MACHINE GUNS daily!
I think I'll go shoot some bunnies with my M-16. ;-)
Thanks risk, I'm feeling great! :)
That's right, you can't. It's a sign the person has rejected the very notion of self defense also and is cunningly acting to take that most fundamental right away.
IMO > By following the Constitution the government will NOT be allowed to ajudicate which religion the government must follow thereby we will be following the Constitution not a ruling written after the Constitution was written.
I do believe this will keep Chrisianity as the religion of America, not an Islamic vision.
I do not. Only two things can do that: immigration control and the ability of Christians in America to defend and spread their faith among other Americans.
The Founding Fathers agreed with me. Establishing religion in government is a short-circut solution to a much larger problem, and it is no less a violation of our individual rights than the gun-banning left advocates.
Furthermore, if an official lobbied and succeeded in establishing a localized Islamic form of government, this law would only bolster that official's position. Think about it: the first amendment proscribes Christian establishment. This law fails to mention Christianity. Why wouldn't this law defend the Hamtramck, Michigan city council's decision to tolerate a vociferous declaration that Allah is the supreme authority in America over the local mosque's loudspeakers?
This HR is demagoguery on the same order as the article I posted that started this thread. I'll do everything I can to fight it and the men behind it.
I find the clause regarding English common law somewhat confusing, as well. In any case, the Constitution is the highest law in the land, and if we find that judges and legislators are invoking foreign powers, then we may need to consider an amendment to the Constitution itself. I believe this is your primary concern. There again, I do not know that another amendment would make the others more clear in this respect.
If any legislator writes a Bill to add an amendment to the Constitution there will be at least 100 tag Bills and we won't have a Constitution when they are done.
The Supreme Court has already acknowledged that "international laws' must be taken into consideration when they make decisions for America.
Wasn't the recent Supreme court opinion on international law split? I believe our conservative judges were quite vocal in their opposition. Some day we'll have a consensus on just how big of a mistake that was. You are absolutely correct to denounce it as a grave error.
Canada recently passed a law that basically allows Muslims to decide the sentencing for Muslim religious violations.
This is where we will be headed, different laws for different cultures. Diversity to the extreme. Unity? Where?
We are the controlling group right now, in ten years we won't be which will make any corrections impossible.
The last I recall reading was that 7 of 9 judges agreed that in certain circumstances 'international law' should be considered.
We're too close to losing America for my comfort. Having a law which orders the legislators and the Courts to follow the Constitution is the best answer I can think of.
It will protect the Bill of Rights and everything else.
We've got to fight this together. But we shouldn't need to violate the intentions of our founding fathers in order to do so. That the left tempts us to do so enrages me even further. As we desperately grasp for solutions to the anti-American, anti-Christian problems they level at us, we slip further away from the vision of a free republic that was intended, that was our birthright.
Principles will set us free, however. The Canadians have abandoned all sense of self-determination, national cohesion, and personal responsibility. We must stand for all of those things, and furthermore we must be prepared to deal with a hostile Canadian Islamic population.
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.
