We don't need no stinkin' Constitution...
Apr. 6th, 2005 10:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
windelina109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 520
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 3, 2005
Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2005'.
TITLE I--JURISDICTION
SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) 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 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.'.
(b) 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.'.
SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.
(a) 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 courts 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.'.
(b) 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.'.
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 up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.
Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to, on, 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
************************
That is perhaps one of the most frightening things I've yet seen come out of this administration. And that's saying alot.
Really read that - it says that the courts would have no jurisdiction over cases where one of the parties says that "god [is] the sovereign source of law". So much for cases that decide the separation of church and state. Hell, so much for separation of church and state!
And there's that other little cookie in there - the US shouldn't look to the standards of laws in other countries (like when the Supreme Court cited other countries' laws when deciding against executing minors). Because the US is a law unto itself, durnit!
I doubt this has much hope of passing - it was sponsored by 5 Senators on the one hand, and 25 Reps on the other. But Christ! It's certainly something to keep an eye on. And regardless, it's just ... icky.
If this administration had been in power, civil rights and desegregation would have been called "judicial activism". Hell, I'm not up on my civil rights history - maybe it was called that at the time. I know it certainly wasn't the popular thing to do at the time and alot of people fought it.
1st Session
S. 520
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 3, 2005
Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2005'.
TITLE I--JURISDICTION
SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) 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 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.'.
(b) 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.'.
SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.
(a) 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 courts 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.'.
(b) 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.'.
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 up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.
Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to, on, 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
************************
That is perhaps one of the most frightening things I've yet seen come out of this administration. And that's saying alot.
Really read that - it says that the courts would have no jurisdiction over cases where one of the parties says that "god [is] the sovereign source of law". So much for cases that decide the separation of church and state. Hell, so much for separation of church and state!
And there's that other little cookie in there - the US shouldn't look to the standards of laws in other countries (like when the Supreme Court cited other countries' laws when deciding against executing minors). Because the US is a law unto itself, durnit!
I doubt this has much hope of passing - it was sponsored by 5 Senators on the one hand, and 25 Reps on the other. But Christ! It's certainly something to keep an eye on. And regardless, it's just ... icky.
If this administration had been in power, civil rights and desegregation would have been called "judicial activism". Hell, I'm not up on my civil rights history - maybe it was called that at the time. I know it certainly wasn't the popular thing to do at the time and alot of people fought it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Race, history, and NCLB
Date: 2005-04-08 01:16 am (UTC)The point I was trying to make about the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections was that there was more going on there than the simple reductionist argument about racist Southern white Democrats suddenly changing parties and voting for Nixon would have you believe. Yes, there was a link back to the Wikipedia article, since your argument seems to have become the conventional wisdom, but it doesn't invalidate my main point, which is that both elections were primarily about the Vietnam War and domestic law & order questions. Good luck finding anything in Nixon's record or campaign speeches to indicate that he supported segregation; you won't find it.
As for states' rights, yeah, they've unfortunately become confused with segregation, but there are powers reserved to the states under the Constitution, and is it wrong to be concerned about the Federal government encroaching on those? I'm not trying to defend segregation, mind you. I'm just objecting to it being equated with the term states' rights.
Fonda's a non sequitur, unless you're trying to tell me Byrd has made public apologies for the racist spew he's on the record as having said and written in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. I acknowledge that Fonda probably did do some good to some troops during the war, but the harm she did to the POWs in North Vietnam is a matter of public record as well. How do you balance the one against the other? I don't know.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but sympathy for the teachers in Minneapolis and St. Paul who are trying to teach without the authority to enforce meaningful discipline. It's damn near impossible, especially when the most experienced teachers can duck out to the quieter schools and leave the rookies to take on the tough situations. I lived in Minneapolis the first 20 years that I was here and grew all too familiar with the MPS system. The fact is that the administration works for a school board that's basically elected at the DFL primary, and Education Minnesota (formerly the AFT in Mpls) calls the shots. You won't find too many candidates they don't endorse making it through the primary. Most of the people in my certification classes are substitutes or teachers from other states, so I have a pretty good idea what goes on in a wide spectrum of the public schools. Based on what I hear from my classmates and what I saw in Minneapolis while my kids were in MPS schools, the best thing they could do with those schools is close them down in accordance with NCLB and start all over from ground zero, because as things are now, those schools don't work.