(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Texas Senator says that violence against judges is understandable and justified.

Speaking of idiots, you Americans have the "Constitution Restoration Act":

House version here
Senate version here
Summary here - and it's the same in both cases.

Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.

This same bill, with fewer sponsors, died last year. Katherine Yurica dissects that (identical) version here.

Comments

[sivi-volk.livejournal.com]

Is this real?

It's not a satire, right?

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

I hope so, but I doubt it. The Religious Reich in the US is freaking insane. I just hope that even if something this batshit crazy passed, the USSC would pretty much immediately declare it unconstitutional.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

You don't seem to understand. The federal government defines where the judiciary has jurisdiction - hence why they could pass a law allowing the Schiavo case to be heard in federal court.

The USSC *can't* declare this unconstitutional, because they legally don't have the right to rule on it. A *state* supreme court can do that, and the state court can't be appealed because the USSC can't rule on it, but a state court only fixes the case for that state.

You'll note it also doesn't specify *which* God - so if a state trooper starts pulling you over IN THE NAME OF SATAN, or a judge starts administering punishments according to old testament (or, worse, Sharia) law, you can't complain or appeal without violating the trooper's freedom of religion according to this act.

And no, Ben, it's not satire.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Congress has tried end-runs around the USSC's power to declare whether or not a law is Constitutional before ... and every time they tried it, they've failed. The USSC may be willing to declare obvious violations of the Bill of Rights like the RICO statutes constitutional, but it's not about to let anything through which limits its power to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

[ex-cerebrate131.livejournal.com]

Except for:

Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

though, it arguably makes clarificatory sense.

Except possibly in Louisiana.