The Constitutional Restoration Act & its current sponsors

[galloglas]

Progressive Economist asked for these people in an earlier thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x449427#449471

The numer of sponsors to this bill, which would destroy Marbury vs. Madison, and allow a backdoor Theocracy, now has more sponsors that in 2004.

Also, the bill numbers have changed to SB 520 and HR 1070 (and I'll post the most egregious parts below the names of the sponsors).

From Thomas.gov:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR01070:@@@P


Sen Allard, Wayne - 5/10/2005
Sen Brownback, Sam - 3/3/2005
Sen Bunning, Jim - 5/10/2005
Sen Burns, Conrad R. - 4/4/2005
Sen Burr, Richard - 3/3/2005
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 3/8/2005
Sen Inhofe, James M. - 5/10/2005
Sen Lott, Trent - 3/8/2005
Sen Vitter, David - 5/26/2006

And HR 1070


Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/8/2005
Rep Alexander, Rodney - 4/5/2005
Rep Bachus, Spencer - 3/3/2005
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 3/3/2005
Rep Barton, Joe - 5/10/2006
Rep Bishop, Rob - 3/3/2005
Rep Bonner, Jo - 9/7/2006
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. - 12/13/2005
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 6/8/2005
Rep Cannon, Chris - 3/3/2005
Rep Cantor, Eric - 3/3/2005
Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 3/3/2005
Rep Deal, Nathan - 5/3/2005
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. - 9/27/2005
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 6/28/2005
Rep Everett, Terry - 3/3/2005
Rep Foxx, Virginia - 3/3/2005
Rep Gingrey, Phil - 4/5/2005
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 3/3/2005
Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 3/3/2005
Rep Herger, Wally - 3/3/2005
Rep Jenkins, William L. - 6/8/2005
Rep Jindal, Bobby - 10/18/2005
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 3/3/2005
Rep King, Steve - 7/28/2005
Rep Lewis, Ron - 3/3/2005
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 3/3/2005
Rep McIntyre, Mike - 3/3/2005
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. - 3/16/2006
Rep Myrick, Sue - 6/30/2005
Rep Norwood, Charlie - 4/5/2005
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) - 7/25/2005
Rep Pearce, Stevan - 6/28/2005
Rep Pence, Mike - 3/3/2005
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 3/3/2005
Rep Poe, Ted - 6/28/2005
Rep Price, Tom - 3/3/2005
Rep Rogers, Mike D. (AL) - 3/3/2005
Rep Ryun, Jim - 3/3/2005
Rep Schmidt, Jean - 11/15/2005
Rep Shimkus, John - 9/27/2005
Rep Sodrel, Michael E. - 4/14/2005
Rep Souder, Mark E. - 3/3/2005
Rep Stearns, Cliff - 6/17/2005
Rep Sullivan, John - 4/5/2005
Rep Wamp, Zach - 3/3/2005
Rep Weldon, Dave - 3/3/2005
Rep Whitfield, Ed - 6/28/2006
Rep Wilson, Joe - 3/3/2005



Oh, Hell, here is the whole bill. It's short.



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.

(My note: This would take care of Bush War Crimes, wouldn't it??)

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.

[OneBlueSky]

1. um . . . the Constitutional Restoration Act is unconstitutional . . . n/t

.

[DRoseDARs]

3. Indeed, only a Constitutional Amendment could do what they're going for...

...and THAT has a fat chance of passing too. :eyes:

[galloglas]

4. One would think so..

but what would happen if Alberto Gonzalez tries to play that card, and there is just one more vote to add to Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, to say "Yes, it is Constitutional."

Who do we call then? GhostBusters?

It is not for nothing that these guys have been introducing this bill, which seems unConstitutional, for several sessions of Congress.

It's like the current squabble over Common Article # 3 of the Geneva Accords, isn't it. Bush, Gonzalez, and others, claim its "too vague" after 58 years? With the CRA they are saying "This is what the First Amendment really means."

All that matters is what they can get away with.

For my money, co-sponsoring the CRA is the American version of the German Army oath of Allegiance to the Fuehrer. They are saying, in effect, (and to those listening for it) that they believe "God Before Country!"

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. and if a Supreme says it is unconstitutional, he can be impeached,

under that same statute which he says is unconstitutional (if I'm reading that right - not good with legalese).

Real Catch-22 there, isn't it.

[galloglas]

6. Real Catch-22 there, isn't it. ?

One would think so, but they only need the reigns to those Four Horses of the Apocalypse one time.

Your right, of course, but who would impeach them? The people can't. And the Ravening Right Wing already has the other two branches under control.

But, if I am missing a strategy to kill the CRA (if ever in place), how would it be done.

I really think the writers of this bill realize that no one (read Congress) would be capable of both passing this bill and impeaching a Supreme. The actions are at two opposite ends of an act of poitical treason, IMHO.

[Warpy]

2. If they do this, then all GOPs will be sued in states like Massachusetts

and decided by a liberal state supreme court with no appeal to the USSC possible.

I doubt they've thought that far in advance.

All they can think about is mandating Protestant prayer in schools, making abortion illegal, making birth control illegal, and disenfranchising blacks, women, and non landowners.