U.S. Senate Bill 2082

[MountainLaurel]

:scared:

Current status: Latest Major Action: 2/12/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2082
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 12, 2004
Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. MILLER, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. ALLARD) 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 2004'.

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) 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 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.'.

(2) 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.'.

(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) 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 court 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.'.

(2) 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.'.

(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.

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.

TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.

Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to 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.

[LynzM]

1. Yeah.

Freakin' scary, batman. The implications of that are huge, in terms of what is and is not acceptable.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Any chance this law itself WON'T get thrown out?

Love to see them enforce this.

[ixion]

3. Should be called "The Constitution Deconstruction Act"

This section is particularly troubling:

(1) 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 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.'.


That paragraph essentially clears the way for Dominionist Rule, with no checks or balances, and no legal recourse.

[ck4829]

4. This is very scary, we MUST act now to prevent this

Let's take a look at what this could mean

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.

In layman's terms it means: The Supreme Court can not act against anything or anybody that acknowedges God as the source of government.

This is wrong in so many ways:
1. The Supreme Court is susposed to be the highest court, if this passes this will not be true any longer.
2. It might just allow judges to exact biblical punishment on offenders.
3. The fact that it refers to 'God' and not 'Religious Figures' tells me something, according to SB 2082 I can't be punished for putting up a monument declaring God to be the source of government. But what will happen if I put up a monument declaring Vishnu to be the source of government?

We must do something. Write Congress, get a petition, inform your family and friends, contact People for the American Way, Americans for Separation of Church and State and other groups. If we stand by and do nothing and allow the Dominionists to take over I can guarantee to you that people of all Faiths will suffer.

[Dark]

5. This is really worrying me, but wouldn't

the Supreme Court just strike it down as unconstitutional? I don't think that, even with their conservative tendancies, they'd let that much power slip.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. Yes, they will strike it down 8-1.

Skkkalia will be the lone dissenter on the court.

[T Roosevelt]

7. Analysis from the Yurica Report

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

By Katherine Yurica

February 19, 2004

We wrote about it before it happened, we called them by their own name, Dominionists, and we told you that Dominionists in Congress were about to fire their first guns for reformation of the American government.

On January 6, 2004, the Yurica Report published “America Stands on the Edge of a Grave Constitutional Crisis Linked to Pat Robertson.” In that article we reported that televangelist Pat Robertson devised a number of ways of limiting the power of the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts of America. To quote from the article, Robertson said as early as March 24, 1986, “Congress could say, ‘There’s a whole class of cases you can’t hear’ and there’s nobody can do anything about it!”

On February 11, 2004, we published “The Despoiling of America” by Katherine Yurica. To quote Robertson from this article, “God’s plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen to take dominion…to reign and rule…There’ll be a reformation….We are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. We’re not gonna stand for it. We are going to say, ‘We want freedom in this country, and we want power…’”

Both these articles reported a crisis in our government and revealed the plan of the far right Dominionists who control Congress to reconstruct our constitution and “restore” it to subservience to a theocratic religion under God and under biblical law. It is the first step in a series of steps to take over and control the government of the United States of America as outlined in “The Despoiling of America.”

<snip>

Although the claim by its sponsors appears to be that the intention is to prevent the courts from hearing cases involving the Ten Commandments or a Nativity Scene in a public setting from being reviewed, the law is drawn broadly and expressly includes the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of executing his office. John Giles, Alabama President of Christian Coalition said, "The greatest unbridled abuse by the federal judiciary for over forty years has been in the area of redefining the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law...We define this as judicial activism, making law from the bench. These unconstitutional rulings have gone unchecked by other branches of government."

<more>

[fdr_hst_fan]

8. Pat Robertson

Isn't he the one whose Senator Daddy got him out of the Korean War? Just asking...

[amber dog democrat]

9. This is NOT Christianity

And I seriously doubt it will find its way out of committee, much less survive a Supreme Court challenge.

Nice try guys.