We don't need no stinkin' Constitution...

[windelina]

109th 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.

Comments

[eowynmn.livejournal.com]

If there were an anti christ, bush would be it.

Because you know if you read the bible, the antichrist will come and be such a *power of god* and act like he is religious and upright, and very *christian* while still perfomring the workings of the devil...ya know?

Very evil people working in our government these days.

don't forget this little a-bomb

[burnunit.livejournal.com]

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.

Sounds like the very fucking definition of an "ex post facto law", which is, naturally, totally unconstitutional!

[luno.livejournal.com]

Regardless of the ex post facto, this is unconstitutional prima facie: It interferes with the right of a citizen to petition the government for redress of greivance. See my snarling in ashamedamerican.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

I know it certainly wasn't the popular thing to do at the time and a lot of people fought it.

Yes. Most of them being Democrats, including the present "conscience of the Senate," ex-Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV). I will point out to you that the Voting Rights Act of 1964 passed only because the vast majority of Republican Senators voted for it, and that the President who sent Federal troops into the Southern states to enforce integration was Eisenhower - a Republican. Eisenhower also federalized the Arkansas National Guard to prevent its governor, Orval Faubus, from using it to obstruct integration. Trying to paint the GOP as a party of racists seriously distorts the actual record, and as a Hispanic I find it personally insulting.

In point of fact, this sort of limitation of the courts' authority is part and parcel of the Constitution: Congress is explicitly authorized to create Federal courts (Article I, section 8, clause 9) and set limits on what the courts have jurisdiction over (Article IV, section 2, clause 2). This bill is basically an amplification of Article VI, clause 3, which prohibits religious tests as a requirement for holding public office -a reference to the Test Act in England, which barred non-Anglicans from government office and the Throne.

The claim that the bill somehow violates the "separation of church and state" is bogus, since the First Amendment's prohibition of an "establishment of religion" speaks only to the designation of one church as the official church of the US and its support with tax dollars, as was then the practice in England and in several of the states. Of course, the Court has interpreted that differently in recent years, but they also once memorably insisted that Dred Scott was property and that Mormonism was no different from African and Asian paganism in its savagery.

While we're at it - considering the recent election in Zimbabwe and the ongoing electoral hijinks in Lebanon, to say nothing of the clampdown on free speech in Canada, remind me again why we should be paying attention to the opinions of foreigners in contruing our laws?

[vanaabegra.livejournal.com]

Um, when I first read this I had to check the date to see if it was an April 1st post...