| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"chibiabos" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2004 11:03:23 AM |
| Object: |
Senate Bill prohibits courts from ruling on "God" |
I am trying to find more information on U.S. Senate Bill 2082
introduced February of this year (2004) and entitled, "Constitution
Restoration Act of 2004." Here is the full text of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2082:
This bill, if passed, will amend Chapter 81 of title 28, United States
Code, as follows:
`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.'.
Basically, the bill prohibits the Supreme Court (or any other federal
court) from ruling on any matter involving God. The bill is retroactive
and specifies the removal of any judge who violates its prohibition.
The most recent information that I have about the bill is that it was
read twice in the Senate, then sent to committee for review, where I
assume it languishes, hopefully dying a slow, ignominious death.
Does anyone know if the status of this bill has changed? Do we need to
start writing letters to our congress-critters?
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)
.
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Bill prohibits courts from ruling on "God" |
15 Nov 2004 05:59:47 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:03:23 -0800, chibiabos wrote:
I am trying to find more information on U.S. Senate Bill 2082
introduced February of this year (2004) and entitled, "Constitution
Restoration Act of 2004." Here is the full text of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2082:
This bill, if passed, will amend Chapter 81 of title 28, United States
Code, as follows:
`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.'.
Basically, the bill prohibits the Supreme Court (or any other federal
court) from ruling on any matter involving God. The bill is retroactive
and specifies the removal of any judge who violates its prohibition.
The most recent information that I have about the bill is that it was
read twice in the Senate, then sent to committee for review, where I
assume it languishes, hopefully dying a slow, ignominious death.
Does anyone know if the status of this bill has changed? Do we need to
start writing letters to our congress-critters?
You can check the status of any bill in Thomas, the Library of
Congress' online reference: http://thomas.loc.gov . Our local atheist
group has addressed this on our TV show, and it's been brought up on
this group a few times already.
If you're going to write your people in congress, I'd suggest
emphasizing the potential danger of actually exercising the
Constitutional provision which allows the exclusion of whole classes of
law from SCOTUS review rather than fixating on this particular bill. So
far no one has actually made use of that clause because it could result
in a nightmare of unbalanced government and total anarchy if used
improperly.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Bill prohibits courts from ruling on "God" |
15 Nov 2004 06:11:16 PM |
|
|
In article <1gciszalr0yhk$.w5cvtfw81gf6$.dlg@40tude.net>, L. Raymond
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
If you're going to write your people in congress, I'd suggest
emphasizing the potential danger of actually exercising the
Constitutional provision which allows the exclusion of whole classes of
law from SCOTUS review rather than fixating on this particular bill. So
far no one has actually made use of that clause because it could result
in a nightmare of unbalanced government and total anarchy if used
improperly.
I am unfamiliar with this provision. What article or amendment? Where
can I learn more about it?
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Bill prohibits courts from ruling on "God" |
16 Nov 2004 08:34:32 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <151120041611167582%chib@outreach.com>, chibiabos lept
out of the bushes shouting:
In article <1gciszalr0yhk$.w5cvtfw81gf6$.dlg@40tude.net>, L. Raymond
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
If you're going to write your people in congress, I'd suggest
emphasizing the potential danger of actually exercising the
Constitutional provision which allows the exclusion of whole classes of
law from SCOTUS review rather than fixating on this particular bill.
So far no one has actually made use of that clause because it could
result in a nightmare of unbalanced government and total anarchy if
used improperly.
I am unfamiliar with this provision. What article or amendment? Where
can I learn more about it?
Article III, Section 2, you can read it over this way:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/
Has the curious bit in it that reads:
"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."
And there's some discussion over here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/20.html#1
Though it's pretty heavy reading. Some interesting bits:
"Unlike its original jurisdiction, the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court is subject to 'exceptions and regulations' prescribed by
Congress, and the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts is subject
to congressional prescription. Additionally, Congress has power to
regulate modes and practices of proceeding on the part of the inferior
federal courts.
"Whether there are limitations to the exercise of these congressional
powers, and what the limitations may be, are matters that have vexed
scholarly and judicial interpretation over the years, inasmuch as
congressional displeasure with judicial decisions has sometimes led to
successful efforts to 'curb' the courts and more frequently to proposed
but unsuccessful curbs."
Disturbingly enough:
"Supreme Court holdings establish clearly the breadth of congressional
power, and numerous dicta assert an even broader power, but that Congress
may through the exercise of its powers vitiate and overturn constitutional
decisions and restrain the exercise of constitutional rights is an
assertion often made but not sustained by any decision of the Court."
The SCOTUS has apparently never "gone there" but has said, itself,
Congress *can overturn constitutional decisions and "restrain the exercise
of constitutional rights."
Nobody seems quite sure what the clause means but there does appear to be
the potential for Congress to cut off the appellate powers of the federal
courts in constitutional matters and then the constitution means whatever
Congress *says it means...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Bill prohibits courts from ruling on "God" |
15 Nov 2004 09:59:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:11:16 -0800, chibiabos wrote:
In article <1gciszalr0yhk$.w5cvtfw81gf6$.dlg@40tude.net>, L. Raymond
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
If you're going to write your people in congress, I'd suggest
emphasizing the potential danger of actually exercising the
Constitutional provision which allows the exclusion of whole classes of
law from SCOTUS review rather than fixating on this particular bill. So
far no one has actually made use of that clause because it could result
in a nightmare of unbalanced government and total anarchy if used
improperly.
I am unfamiliar with this provision. What article or amendment? Where
can I learn more about it?
It's Article III, Section 2, Para. 2 "In all the other Cases before
mentioned [in Para. 1], 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." It's the vague, utterly
undefined "Exceptions" that they're using as a basis for the no SCOTUS
jurisdiction clause, which appears in other bills, too, if you've not
seen them, eg. the bill passed to confirm god in the pledge.
I'm not at all a legal scholar, but I've asked around and done what
little legal research I'm able, and apparently this clause has *never*
been invoked in U.S. history, until now, when the fundies are
desperately trying to codify their religion.
My opinion is that rather than saying it's a bad thing to make this
exception in favor of god, which wouldn't go over well, it would be more
effective to write a letter pointing out how this provision could be
abused, then offer examples that should alarm anyone regardless of
religious affiliation, thereby demonstrating what an evil precedent
they'll be setting.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Bill prohibits courts from ruling on "God" |
16 Nov 2004 12:28:51 PM |
|
|
In article <re5yelpb0i1p.1m3uzlb11xa9i$.dlg@40tude.net>, L. Raymond
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:11:16 -0800, chibiabos wrote:
In article <1gciszalr0yhk$.w5cvtfw81gf6$.dlg@40tude.net>, L. Raymond
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
If you're going to write your people in congress, I'd suggest
emphasizing the potential danger of actually exercising the
Constitutional provision which allows the exclusion of whole classes of
law from SCOTUS review rather than fixating on this particular bill. So
far no one has actually made use of that clause because it could result
in a nightmare of unbalanced government and total anarchy if used
improperly.
I am unfamiliar with this provision. What article or amendment? Where
can I learn more about it?
It's Article III, Section 2, Para. 2 "In all the other Cases before
mentioned [in Para. 1], 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." It's the vague, utterly
undefined "Exceptions" that they're using as a basis for the no SCOTUS
jurisdiction clause, which appears in other bills, too, if you've not
seen them, eg. the bill passed to confirm god in the pledge.
I'm not at all a legal scholar, but I've asked around and done what
little legal research I'm able, and apparently this clause has *never*
been invoked in U.S. history, until now, when the fundies are
desperately trying to codify their religion.
My opinion is that rather than saying it's a bad thing to make this
exception in favor of god, which wouldn't go over well, it would be more
effective to write a letter pointing out how this provision could be
abused, then offer examples that should alarm anyone regardless of
religious affiliation, thereby demonstrating what an evil precedent
they'll be setting.
Thanks, to you, and to Mark Bilbo.
Now, my question is, suppose, under Article III, Sec. 2, Para 2, such
an exception were to be made for religious issues (as in the case of SB
2082). Wouldn't that violate the establishment clause of the 1st
Amendment?
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Bill prohibits courts from ruling on "God" |
16 Nov 2004 12:49:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:28:51 -0800, chibiabos <chib@outreach.com> wrote:
In article <re5yelpb0i1p.1m3uzlb11xa9i$.dlg@40tude.net>, L. Raymond
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:11:16 -0800, chibiabos wrote:
In article <1gciszalr0yhk$.w5cvtfw81gf6$.dlg@40tude.net>, L. Raymond
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
If you're going to write your people in congress, I'd suggest
emphasizing the potential danger of actually exercising the
Constitutional provision which allows the exclusion of whole classes of
law from SCOTUS review rather than fixating on this particular bill. So
far no one has actually made use of that clause because it could result
in a nightmare of unbalanced government and total anarchy if used
improperly.
I am unfamiliar with this provision. What article or amendment? Where
can I learn more about it?
It's Article III, Section 2, Para. 2 "In all the other Cases before
mentioned [in Para. 1], 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." It's the vague, utterly
undefined "Exceptions" that they're using as a basis for the no SCOTUS
jurisdiction clause, which appears in other bills, too, if you've not
seen them, eg. the bill passed to confirm god in the pledge.
I'm not at all a legal scholar, but I've asked around and done what
little legal research I'm able, and apparently this clause has *never*
been invoked in U.S. history, until now, when the fundies are
desperately trying to codify their religion.
My opinion is that rather than saying it's a bad thing to make this
exception in favor of god, which wouldn't go over well, it would be more
effective to write a letter pointing out how this provision could be
abused, then offer examples that should alarm anyone regardless of
religious affiliation, thereby demonstrating what an evil precedent
they'll be setting.
Thanks, to you, and to Mark Bilbo.
Now, my question is, suppose, under Article III, Sec. 2, Para 2, such
an exception were to be made for religious issues (as in the case of SB
2082). Wouldn't that violate the establishment clause of the 1st
Amendment?
-chib
If it did, it would be a matter of unprovable meta-reality, given that the courts
alone would, otherwise, be empowered to pronounce that finding. It's a
Doomsday Machine to constitutional government as it has existed. Once
invoked 'successfully', it could never be withheld from the greedy, sweaty
hands of majoritarian demagogues to shape a bullet-proof Thousand Year
Reich.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Bill prohibits courts from ruling on "God" |
17 Nov 2004 05:30:11 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:28:51 -0800, chibiabos wrote:
In article <re5yelpb0i1p.1m3uzlb11xa9i$.dlg@40tude.net>, L. Raymond
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:11:16 -0800, chibiabos wrote:
In article <1gciszalr0yhk$.w5cvtfw81gf6$.dlg@40tude.net>, L. Raymond
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
If you're going to write your people in congress, I'd suggest
emphasizing the potential danger of actually exercising the
Constitutional provision which allows the exclusion of whole classes of
law from SCOTUS review rather than fixating on this particular bill. So
far no one has actually made use of that clause because it could result
in a nightmare of unbalanced government and total anarchy if used
improperly.
I am unfamiliar with this provision. What article or amendment? Where
can I learn more about it?
It's Article III, Section 2, Para. 2 "In all the other Cases before
mentioned [in Para. 1], 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." It's the vague, utterly
undefined "Exceptions" that they're using as a basis for the no SCOTUS
jurisdiction clause, which appears in other bills, too, if you've not
seen them, eg. the bill passed to confirm god in the pledge.
I'm not at all a legal scholar, but I've asked around and done what
little legal research I'm able, and apparently this clause has *never*
been invoked in U.S. history, until now, when the fundies are
desperately trying to codify their religion.
My opinion is that rather than saying it's a bad thing to make this
exception in favor of god, which wouldn't go over well, it would be more
effective to write a letter pointing out how this provision could be
abused, then offer examples that should alarm anyone regardless of
religious affiliation, thereby demonstrating what an evil precedent
they'll be setting.
Thanks, to you, and to Mark Bilbo.
Now, my question is, suppose, under Article III, Sec. 2, Para 2, such
an exception were to be made for religious issues (as in the case of SB
2082). Wouldn't that violate the establishment clause of the 1st
Amendment?
This is the sort of thing I had hoped to learn myself, but I had no
luck. Not knowing a lawyer who specializes in Constitutional law, I'm
not sure how to find out something like this.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
