The Government is now attacking "non mainstream religions" - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

cyrnel · 06-01-2005, 01:09 PM

The judge must not have had his coffee, or the parents were dressed improperly. Then again, without strange cases to test our boundaries how would we have any?

Faith always provokes the loudest responses. Hope people can collect themselves so we see more deep thinking instead of the big Masterlock.

<img src="http://www.masterlockimages.com/SiteStuff/Images/splash_locks2.jpg">

powerclown · 06-01-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

My obsure mystic religion tells me that a bright yellow warning is on the way.

Yes, o Mystical Elphaba!

And let us hope it's aim is True!

xepherys · 06-01-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

but Schiavo set the precedent that the FED Sen and Reps can say whatever they want and hold emergency meetings to make a case Federal.

Wrong, wrong, wrong... this is one this we DON'T want to look at as a precedent. We want to look at it as a mistake, soon to be, hopefully, forgotten. We do NOT want the fed to hold emergency meetings about things outside of their scope of duty. Yes it happened, now let's all try to pretend it didn't... please!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

(Foolthemall and ScottKuma exempted, they came straight out said it was a bad ruling.... 2 out of how many?)

Did you not read my first post. I'm sorry, maybe I talked too much. My initial point was, this is an unconstitutional ruling. The whole point of my post was to show that "fringe" religions are bullshit, and that any religion should have the same merit in the US.

pan6467 · 06-01-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Well, what immediately comes to mind is that I don't think this has gotten nearly as much attention as the Shiavo case. Much, perhaps most, of the "silent approval" may come from people simply not knowing about this. People who don't watch/read/listen to the news at all knew about Shiavo.

But as for those who do know of it:

1. I think Ustwo's response is actually one likely possibility. Shiavo was life and death. This is case of religious freedom that I, myself, am not incredibly concerned with - I don't believe the infringement will survive and I think the damage will be nominal.

2. It's possible to hold the view that Wicca is a dangerous cult and that the judge in this case did the right thing, while also holding the view that the Florida judge legislated from the bench. I don't think this is correct, but I see a possible non-hypocritical assimilation of these views.

3. Yeah, there are probably hypocrites in this as well, people who neglected to sufficiently examine their positions or refuse to.

On a side-note, I lean towards both the "judge acted correctly" side and the "Shiavo should've lived" side. What gave me pause about the whole issue was that she only required what everyone else in the world requires - food and water. But enough of that, I don't want to derail the thread.

Before this thread gets closed as it has deteriorated fast ..... shame too because answers like yours Fool are what I was looking for so that dialogue could open and we could understand maybe each other's side, without having to resort to insinuations, namecalling and yelling and such.

FOOL YOU HAVE TRULY EARNED MY RESPECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cyn: I am sorry if some of what I said complicates things for you and that you turned off. This is a very important issue to me, not because I am Wiccan, but because as I said my spirituality is unique to me.... someday I hope to have a child or 2 and teach my beliefs to him/her as well as other beliefs (one reason I go to a Unitarian Church to understand many religions and beliefs not just one).

As I have said the fact this could go on for a long time and bankrupt the parents into not being able to fight anymore, therefore allowing a precedent to be set is very scary. People need to see this and understand what is happening before it is too late.

Many of my posts were repetitive because some people kept choosing to insinuate Wicca as a cult, or bring the nudity into it or try to troll, change the subject etc. I was repetitive so as to keep the thread on track.... with some it worked and Dialogue could have been opened.... (have a feeling tho it is too late in this thread, tho.)

Don't let my passion and overzealous behavior turn you off to the truth though..... this is truly something that can have sever ramifications on everyone's rights.

One thing that scares me is IF and When this judgement gets overturned the appelate judges may tell other adjudicators exactly how to phrase the same ruling so that it will hold up.Again paranoia... but this day and age nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to our rights and freedoms).

Also I respond when challenged... I had one tell me I was a revisionist in this thread and I challenged where..... I never did get an answer. I had one tell me Mormons that are polygymous get the same rulings against them.... I challenged when and where show me the proof.... again the challenge went unanswered. It truly irks me when someone challenges me then when I respond asking for examples or proof they disappear or never mention it again.

Anyway... thanks to those who were productive, I did find a newfound respect for some here.

Roachboy..... your passion is great and strong never lose it, but learn how to use it better. As someone who learnt from mistakes.... never stoop to their level keep on topic and focussed.... You're a good man and I would hate to see you banned..... you have great debating skills..... use them wisely and you can go far

pan6467 · 06-01-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Wrong, wrong, wrong... this is one this we DON'T want to look at as a precedent. We want to look at it as a mistake, soon to be, hopefully, forgotten. We do NOT want the fed to hold emergency meetings about things outside of their scope of duty. Yes it happened, now let's all try to pretend it didn't... please!?

wish that it were that easy to forget.... but I am with you ... Schiavo had no right to be Fed. And no emergency meetings.... well show how power hungry the party truly was....

However this case does constitute Fed. Court as it is a Constitutional issue.... however, I would hope it isn't ever necessary and the next court drives it down without even having to think about it.

I have a feeling this is one case that truly will be interesting to follow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Did you not read my first post. I'm sorry, maybe I talked too much. My initial point was, this is an unconstitutional ruling. The whole point of my post was to show that "fringe" religions are bullshit, and that any religion should have the same merit in the US.

To be quite honest I was so used to having noone on the right comment truly and with thought on the issue, that I thought you were a "Lib" (sorry if you are insulted not meant to be).... Plus not sure we have ever crossed paths so I don't know where you truly stand politically.... Your post was very well written and I am sorry I didn't comment on it..... Again you showed me someone that wanted to open dialogue and is knowledgeable about the subject.

xepherys · 06-01-2005, 04:00 PM

Interesting... I don't think anyone has ever thought me to be "right" of anything in particular, but I'm not a liberal either. Frankly, I'm not anything (though I tend to vote Libertarian). I am a strong supporter of the Xepherys party... where I firmly believe in my beliefs! At any rate, no offense taken (either way). I plan to be in this forum more often, so I'm sure we'll meet again!

~X

Lebell · 06-01-2005, 04:51 PM

I am a newly minted daddy.

That means I've been back and forth to the hospital and am short sleep.

Apparently I should be reading this thread and issuing warnings, but I haven't got around to it.

So here's the deal.

I won't hold it against you previous to this post.

But I WILL go back and read things, so if you continue *whatever* is against forum rules after this post, spankings will be issued.

If you're *really* a dick about it, a temp ban may be headed your way.

And may the Schwartz be with you.

pan6467 · 06-01-2005, 06:53 PM

CONGRATS LEBELL......I AM SURE YOU'LL MAKE A GREAT FATHER

Elphaba · 06-01-2005, 09:14 PM

Congrats to you and Sexymomma. I promise to behave myself. Permission to slap others silly if they do not?

ScottKuma · 06-03-2005, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

The whole thing about Bush and the GOP staying silent is why was it ok to interfere and make Schiavo's case national and yet they stay silent on this....... it's just hypocritical and approval by silence in my opinion.

I guess the difference is that Schiavo's case was in the courts for something on the order of 10 YEARS!

By the way, even though I vehemently disagreed with the Schiavo case's ultimate outcome -- but let's not start debating that case again! -- I do agree with Xepherys's opinion that the Federal Government really had little right to interfere with the multiple lower courts' rulings on the matter. It was the Supreme Court's right & duty to rule on the case, should they find enough legal reasons to do so. They didn't, so end of game. Ultimately I don't have to agree with every court ruling...but if I don't agree with enough of them, it's time to vote for a change in those who would make laws and/or start a grass-roots effort to change the laws through referendum.

I'm not saying that a decision that affects this child's upbringing should languish for ten years. I'm just saying that, as in the Schiavo case, it's not the Executive Branch of the Federal Government's place to interfere. Even if they did before, two wrongs don't make a right. Let the court rulings stay their course, and I'm confident this will be overturned.

ScottKuma · 06-03-2005, 03:40 AM

By the way, Pan...

We are on the same side of this issue - both of us agree that it was a bone-headed ruling by the lower courts. And I think that both of us agree that the judge trying to pin ANY religion as "non-mainstream" is absolutely abhorrent and unconstitutional.

I just don't think it's quite the time to start running around, shout that the sky is falling (KIDDING!

) , or begin the protesting...yet. Should this ruling not be corrected in normal measure, or should rulings like this continue, I'll be right there next to you.

The key is that our system was DESIGNED that these types of decisions would correct themselves. These corrections just happen slowly - as I believe most governmental actions should happen. My argument is perhaps better applied to Congressional actions (law-making), but I think it applies here, too. A government that moves and acts too quickly often does so rashly.

xepherys · 06-03-2005, 06:44 AM

Quick = rash? Like the USA PATRIOT ACT? Hmmm, 'nuff said...

ScottKuma · 06-03-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Quick = rash? Like the USA PATRIOT ACT? Hmmm, 'nuff said...

My point exactly.

pan6467 · 06-03-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

By the way, Pan...

We are on the same side of this issue - both of us agree that it was a bone-headed ruling by the lower courts. And I think that both of us agree that the judge trying to pin ANY religion as "non-mainstream" is absolutely abhorrent and unconstitutional.

I just don't think it's quite the time to start running around, shout that the sky is falling (KIDDING!

) , or begin the protesting...yet. Should this ruling not be corrected in normal measure, or should rulings like this continue, I'll be right there next to you.

The key is that our system was DESIGNED that these types of decisions would correct themselves. These corrections just happen slowly - as I believe most governmental actions should happen. My argument is perhaps better applied to Congressional actions (law-making), but I think it applies here, too. A government that moves and acts too quickly often does so rashly.

I agree somewhat that time will tell and hopefully this will be struck down, again, I feel with the GOP and Religious Right putting pressure on what they deem as "liberal" judges and this case being in Indiana (one of the most Cons. states....) it may be harder to overturn than people want to believe.... I pray not but.....

As for shouting, I am very concerned a judge tried to put this in let alone even think about it. This should concern anyone wanting and valuing their rights because obviously the second judge let this stand. And with court dockets, how long does this family have to wait before they can practice their freedom of religion with their child??????

And what about finances....... if they run out and the appeals stop then precedent is set. I can see this happening, and that is a scary thought.

So yes, it is 2 judges or a judge and moderator or whatever, and yes, it is early, but in cases like this I would rather panic too fast than watch as someone loses their rights until their case can be appealed.

I like your arguments and the facts that you provided to give me cause to think as to why someone would consider this ok. You have provided good dialogue and hopefully people (INCLUDING MYSELF ATY TIMES) can use yours, Fool's, X's examples of intelligent dialogues as standards, where we don't have attacks on people or ideas but rational viewpoints discussed.

Cynthetiq · 06-03-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

And what about finances....... if they run out and the appeals stop then precedent is set. I can see this happening, and that is a scary thought.

that happens all the time, usually it's deep corporate pockets that create these situations.

ScottKuma · 06-04-2005, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I like your arguments and the facts that you provided to give me cause to think as to why someone would consider this ok. You have provided good dialogue and hopefully people (INCLUDING MYSELF ATY TIMES) can use yours, Fool's, X's examples of intelligent dialogues as standards, where we don't have attacks on people or ideas but rational viewpoints discussed.

Thanks for the kudos. Too often, political debate devolves either into "liberal" vs. "conservative" name-calling matches, or people trying to out-shout each other instead of debate rationally. I like a good debate, but I skip over or quit a lot of threads that get....uncivil. Personal attacks don't help us to see each others' viewpoints -- it just shuts down debate & creates even more animosity between those on the "left" and the "right".

I think most people who use those labels don't realize that nobody is truly on the "left" or the "right"...we're all some semblance of moderates. I, for example, tend to be fiscally conservative, but a bit left-of-center on social issues. I listen to conservative talk radio and find myself equally nodding my head in agreement and shouting at my radio in disagreement. Throw into the mix the fact that I favor a strict constitutional interpretation...and everything goes amuck every now and again!

I wasn't kidding when I said that I'd be right there next to you if the situation didn't change in this court situation. I live in Ohio, and this hits a bit too close to home for me. Even though I'm nominally Christian I am absolutely firm in my stance that peoples' beliefs should be inviolable from government intrusion.

tecoyah · 06-04-2005, 07:34 AM

Perhaps this will get this thread back on track.....pertinent to the issue, and worthy of debate. I myself find the below article, and the fact this proposed legislation has gone unnoticed to be somewhat disturbing. There does seem to be a pattern forming , aimed at some form of national religion.....I suppose we shall see.

Congress moves to restrict court rulings on God

05/18/05 "Vermont Guardian"

WASHINGTON — Conservatives balk at accusations that the current Congress and the Bush administration are intent on turning the United States into a theocracy. Yet, a bill sponsored by 28 members of the U.S. House and Senate looks like a move in that direction.

According to the text of the bill, the proposed Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 would remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "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."

Commenting on the general trend, Bill Moyers noted in a March article for the New York Review of Books that the religious right backs nearly half the members of Congress. "Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the most influential Christian Right advocacy groups," he noted.

If passed, the bill also would limit the ability of judges to interpret the Constitution if it involved "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."

Judges who fail to comply could be impeached or prosecuted.

Project Censored award-winning journalist W. David Kubiak charges that the bill would divorce U.S. jurisprudence from "our hard-won secular history and international norms." The Conservative Caucus has called it an important step that would prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from weighing in on "the acknowledgement of God (as in the Roy Moore 10 Commandments issue); and it also restricts federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign countries and international law [e.g., against torture, global warming, unjust wars, etc.] as the supreme law of our land."

Thus far, the mainstream media has ignored the legislation. A May 16 search of Google News turned up no coverage, despite the fact that the office of lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL, told Kubiak last week, "We have the votes for passage."

Copyright: Vermont Guardian.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8923.htm

lets try to discuss this....rather than beat each other up.

pan6467 · 06-04-2005, 07:44 AM

Amazing..... it's my birthday and I don't want to get worked up, so I'll just leave it at that today.

xepherys · 06-05-2005, 10:36 AM

It's easier just to copy/paste this:

---------------------------------------------------

[11:22] {blank}: why do people assume that a Government that doesn't shun relition is a Theocracy?

[11:22] xepherys: ?

[11:24] xepherys: well, if that quote is correct

[11:24] xepherys: I agree

[11:24] xepherys: "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

[11:25] xepherys: God is not, and should not be, the source of law, liberty or government in our country

[11:25] xepherys: it may not truly be a step towards theocracy

[11:25] xepherys: but I do believe that it's a step in the wrong direction

[11:26] {blank}: that may well Be...

[11:26] {blank}: but...The Ten Commandments form the basic tenets for our laws!

[11:27] {blank}: or at least a subset of the 10 C

[11:27] xepherys: *shrug* but they are man-made laws, they were not devised or provided as divine laws

[11:27] xepherys: oddly enough, the ten commandments are just good, common moral sense... and have been law to some degree or another for thousands of years

[11:27] xepherys: in many places

[11:27] xepherys: including Egypt (non-Jew/Christian)

[11:27] xepherys: uhhh... Persia

[11:28] xepherys: so, the bible is written around the same common sense that our laws are... *shrug* what difference does that make?

[11:31] xepherys: also, "remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "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." continues to try to remove a variety of checks and balances, granting greater power to the legislative and executive branches

pan6467 · 06-06-2005, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Perhaps this will get this thread back on track.....pertinent to the issue, and worthy of debate. I myself find the below article, and the fact this proposed legislation has gone unnoticed to be somewhat disturbing. There does seem to be a pattern forming , aimed at some form of national religion.....I suppose we shall see.

Thank you for finding and posting this. The whole religion issue is becoming very scary, and yet people are silent. Silent approval is worse than vocal approval because the people who are silent now will be the ones crying in the future and the people like myself who begged people to pay attention and were laughed at, told they needed to chill and shunned as lunatics won't freaking care because the "silent majority" chose to piss their rights away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Congress moves to restrict court rulings on God

05/18/05 "Vermont Guardian"

WASHINGTON — Conservatives balk at accusations that the current Congress and the Bush administration are intent on turning the United States into a theocracy. Yet, a bill sponsored by 28 members of the U.S. House and Senate looks like a move in that direction.

According to the text of the bill, the proposed Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 would remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "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."

Commenting on the general trend, Bill Moyers noted in a March article for the New York Review of Books that the religious right backs nearly half the members of Congress. "Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the most influential Christian Right advocacy groups," he noted.

What's sad is the majority of the GOP followers have no idea or turn a blind eye and don't want to see how the religious right ahave so much power in their party. I can understand the conservatives that want fiscal responsibility and believe their party can give them tax breaks and cut programs they dislike, however, they fail to see the price the rest of us pay by the devious actions of those in charge.

Bush and company are saying, "let's appease the rich and make the middle class think they are getting something, while we take away rights". And yet, these same people claim "to be the great protectors of the Constitution". Yet, what part of the Constitution says the courts cannot judge on people suing the government for their rights? That is what the bill is saying and the right wingers who claim the Dems take away rights are silently allowing their party to destroy the Constitution with bills like this.

I truly don't understand the blind following of a party and the belief that the party will not hurt them..... I'm a Dem. but when my party fucks up I admit it, unlike the GOP blind followers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

If passed, the bill also would limit the ability of judges to interpret the Constitution if it involved "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."

Judges who fail to comply could be impeached or prosecuted.

Again, as I said starting this thread, this forces judges to look over their shoulder and make judgements not based on the Constitution but based on what the GOP and religious right want.

Impeached or prosecuted for interpretting laws as constitutional or not???? What the fuck? Are the GOP and Religious Right going to have watchdogs and any judge who rules against their will is going to be thrown out of office or arrested and sent to some "reconditioning camp"? What about the judges ELECTED by the people, does this mean that even if a judge was elected to hold office that these power hungry people will thumb their nose to the people who elected the judge and say the people were wrong and the judge is going to prison for ruling against what "the GOP and Religious Right deem as right"?

Also, this allows for us to ignore the Geneva Convention, any UN laws, and any treaities we don't like. The GOP want to ship jobs overseas for cheap labor, and yet they don't want to have to abide by laws of those countries. Isolationism, in any form creates only enemies and any diplomacy is out the window. Need I remind the GOP that the USA is older and fatter than the hungrier nations and those nations have more people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Project Censored award-winning journalist W. David Kubiak charges that the bill would divorce U.S. jurisprudence from "our hard-won secular history and international norms." The Conservative Caucus has called it an important step that would prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from weighing in on "the acknowledgement of God (as in the Roy Moore 10 Commandments issue); and it also restricts federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign countries and international law [e.g., against torture, global warming, unjust wars, etc.] as the supreme law of our land."

Thus far, the mainstream media has ignored the legislation. A May 16 search of Google News turned up no coverage, despite the fact that the office of lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL, told Kubiak last week, "We have the votes for passage."

Copyright: Vermont Guardian.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8923.htm

lets try to discuss this....rather than beat each other up.

The GOP is destroying any opposition and silencing a whole 1/3 of the Constitutional branch. There will be no checks and balances, and this should scare everyone into action.

What this also shows me is that the Religious Right have sold their souls to a party (The GOP) that will tell them what they want to hear and get them elected and get these bills passed..... but what the Religious Right are so blind to see is that these bills can also be used eventually against them. The GOP is saying what the Religious Right wants to get the power, once they have the power the GOP will no longer need the Religious Right and they will destroy them so that the Religious Right will never again have any power.

IF that sound complicated let me use an example: the GOP needs to get elected and have power.... the join with the Religious Right, demonize the Dems. The Religious Right gives the GOP their approval in all things, but they want a Christian country where the religious leaders have more power.

The GOP agrees. The Religious Right gets the GOP Congress, the Presidency, the majority of Governorships and state legislatures and works to demonize everything the opposing party promotes.

The GOP once in power makes bills like these and poses as the Religious Right's best friend. However, as laws like this come into being it weakens the Religious Right yet they are blind. Eventually, the GOP has everything thanks to the Religious Right and uses these bills to silence and condemn the Religious Right thereby making sure the Religious Right can never help the opposing party once they realize they helped the monster they thought they were protecting themselves against into power.

Jesus is weeping right now because the leaders of his churches are so power hungry they have lost touch with HIS teachings because they are so power hungry and yet so freaking blind.

Beware the man that will give you whatever you want to gain power, because once in power he will no longer need you and he will destroy you so that you can never help his enemy.

If we are to stop this we must do so now or everyone who loves their freedoms will lose. But again according to the GOP leaders and their talking head puppets (and yes, those talking head puppets are far more powerful and influential than people want to believe), our God given rights guaranteed by the Constitution are priveleges..... given by the government and NOT rights given by God.... listen to what they say and how they say it.... they are indeed preaching that so laws like this can come into being without true opposition from within the party.

Lebell · 06-06-2005, 08:01 AM

Of course, any such law would itself be subject to judicial review.

Historically such efforts by maveric legistlators have failed and been exposed for the political grandstanding that they are.

pan6467 · 06-06-2005, 08:14 AM

I hope so, but it is scary that such efforts are being presented more and more often.

I believe last year, Congress wanted to do something similar and limited Judges dockets and cases.

Again, demonify the one branch you do not control and continue to do so until you find ways to control it.

Perhaps, the Dems. are right in filibustering judges, for fear once stacked, laws like this will go through and not be challenged.

Ustwo · 06-06-2005, 08:32 AM

(Note this post should be read with a ‘Foghorn Leghorn’ accent to achieve maximum effect.)

You gentleman will have to forgive me if I didn't take the word of the venerable 'Vermont Guardian' as, gospel, no pun intended of course, but after a quick perusal of its content it is my opinion that the 'Vermont Guardian' couldn't be trusted to give you the base ball scores without putting a left wing spin on them. As such I decided to find the bill itself and see what it says. Thankfully it was mercifully brief, unlike many such matters which come before congress.

Here is the, offending, bill in its entirety.

Quote:

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.

Now I am no lawyer, my self respect being too high for that profession, but if I may be so bold as to state my vocabulary and reading comprehension have always been most highly regarded, that I think perhaps I may have the intent of this bill translated to the point where it can be rendered in common english.

Let us look at the first part, the ‘offensive’ part if you will.

Quote:

`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.'.

Now, I’ll be honest with you all, as this is a most confusing sentence, and made all the more confusing because that which it intends to protect does not seem to need protecting, at least not at this time. How I read this is that at no point should the Supreme Court be allowed to rule if a person is fit or unfit for duty/office due to their belief in god. Yes what this says, is that you are allowed to believe in God without fear of government interference. Now on the surface this seems a bit silly to me, after all do we not have freedom of religion? But perhaps the writers here have a bit of future vision where the secular nature of the land is such that belief in god is considered a negative thing, and something which makes one unfit. I would assume that such a law would be able to protect a Wiccan as much as a Christian. I think at worst such a law may allow a city perhaps to place the 10 commandments on the lawn of a courthouse, which as some of you may recall, caused a bit of a ruckus not too long ago, but even that would not be guaranteed.

Quote:

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

Now this my friends, is far more reaching than the first part of this bill. While you may fret about the former, I do not see it being a threat to this land, in all fairness such a concern would not have been a concern until our more recent history. This on the other hand cuts to a bigger problem. You will have to forgive me for I do not recall the case, but not long ago members of the Supreme Court of the United States of America used foreign European law as precedence for deciding US law. I assure you I was as shocked as you upon learning this. When the court uses foreign law to decide if US law is just it is no longer a court, it is the legislative, executive, and judicial branch combined. It is not for the court to decide if it LIKES a law only that the law is just under the excising fame work. It is up to our elected officials to decide on that framework, and to change laws accordingly to the public desires, to allow the courts to write and enforce the laws is despotism.

The rest of the bill is but standard issue filler. No lower courts are allowed to rule either, and judges must abide by the new law or face removal, which is just common sense.

Now it’s a shame that the two provisions are linked as the second is far more important than the first. While the first is a reaction to what could only be described as ‘militant secularism’ where those of faith are attacked because they have faith, its implications are minor. The second provision is what is far more important to pass, to remind judges they are there to look at US law framed by the constitution. They are not there to make the laws ‘better’ based on their own whims. It is elected officials that write law, not judges.

stevo · 06-06-2005, 09:54 AM

I say, I say, Sir. Thats some good readin'.

roachboy · 06-06-2005, 10:28 AM

nice to see an argument, ustwo. serious about that.

the bill you cite is really curious--it appears to be centered around the assumptions of the original intent "school" of far right jurisprudence--ratification of this bill would pass this stuff into law--the business about restricting what materials can be used in interpreting the constitution

Quote:

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.

seems patently absurd, the grounds for a kind of reactionary legal revolution--teh elimination of all precedent from the ratification of the constitution onward as guides for interpreting the constitution? isn't that a basic redefinition of the entirety of the american system of constitutional law? and how would this work exactly?

wouldnt there be basic problems of legality that would arise along with these extra- or pre-constitutional interpretive guidlines? the "logic" of the above seems problematic historically as well as legally (what about the end of the revolution? would that not put kind of a endpoint to the applicability of english constitutional and common law? what abotu the articles of confederation period?)

if american law starts with the adoption of the constitution, what relevance would traditions that predate that approval have?

it seems like the far right has decided that it woudl prefer the states live under a civil law tradition--what the above amounts to is throwing out everything about the precedent-based system that the us has worked under since 1789.

it seems like a crackpot proposal, doesnt it?

if i understand this bill correctly, it is far more dangerous than was made out to be earlier in the thread.

maybe the vermont guardian underplayed what a crackpot proposal this law is. it only get sworse when you try to explain it, ustwo.

with reference to the case at hand, if this bill were to become law, would you not have to draw on 18th century english legal precedents that define what is and is not a religion and go from there? so anything and everything not protestant would be equally not a religion, yes?

pan6467 · 06-06-2005, 11:09 AM

1) I just love being talked down to by Ustwo..... (read in a Foghorn Leghorn voice? was that really necessary or can I assume you are talking down to me, because I saw no humour in it, just ego and a person trying to act superior.)

2) Your explanations do not dispute anything previously mentioned, in fact as roachboy pointed out, it only proves that the fears need to exist. For example, the Godfather clause, the poll taxes, gerrymandering, and so on all laws passed and upheld by different SC would thus be thrown out? That sounds pretty damned sad to me.

This also coming from a person who chose to insinuate Wicca to Heaven's Gate and one who challenges sources yet refuses to offer up sources when asked himself. Or even on this thread where a judge legislated from the bench and you have refused to say the judge was wrong, yet you like this bill because it prevents judges from "making laws" (legislating).

So you want judges to legislate they way you want them to, but not if you don't like the outcome. That is what your silence and your insinuations and challenging of the news articles tells me. It is ok for you to have a judge tell parents they can't allow their child to partake in their religious worship (which is a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution) but not to have (how many judges with ALL the facts and having heard both sides equally) decide the Schiavo case?

Which judge's legislation is ok then and which isn't? One case wasn't even Federal but the GOP tried in vain (including demonizing judges and grandstanding) to make it so?

If you are to go by the Constitution, then there is an express and purposeful seperation of powers and yet this legislation supresses that seperation.

Also, sending a judge to prison because he didn't rule the way who wants? Obviously there will be a who involved to watch over and hold the judges to this law, so who is to be that power? Congress?

So when Dems. come back into power and all of a sudden judges start making calls you dislike but go by this bill, are you going to convientently forget it was the GOP who pushed for this and cry about how the Dems are misusing the law?

And how do you prevent Congress (either side) especially when they hold the executive branch from abusing the power provided from this bill?

Sorry way too many questions for me, to like this bill or to be silent about it.

Cynthetiq · 06-06-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

1) I just love being talked down to by Ustwo..... (read in a Foghorn Leghorn voice? was that really necessary or can I assume you are talking down to me, because I saw no humour in it, just ego and a person trying to act superior.)

Anyone who know's Foghorn Leghorn's history knows that he's a caricature of such way of speaking.... which is to say Ustwo was putting levity on himself. at least my take on it... another mod is welcome to chime in.

keep personal bashing out of this context.

Cynthetiq · 06-06-2005, 11:52 AM

As far as ustwo's post, thank you for the direct text and your interpretation of it. I find it very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff when I have to research so many layers of commentary and interpretation and prove or disprove each layer accordingly.

Ustwo · 06-06-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Anyone who know's Foghorn Leghorn's history knows that he's a caricature of such way of speaking.... which is to say Ustwo was putting levity on himself. at least my take on it... another mod is welcome to chime in.

keep personal bashing out of this context.

Hehe sometimes its good to lighten up. I decided to play with a style of speech, (and failed in many places) for fun while writing. I was in fact making a bit of fun of myself, as Foghorn Leghorn is known for being quite verbose while being very wrong and always getting the worst end of a deal in the end.

I've always wanted to be a writer, and perhaps I could have been, but 14 years of scientific text has sucked the writing ability out of me, but its fun to play with now and then.

Elphaba · 06-06-2005, 01:37 PM

Foghorn's southern gentleman accent and pomposity is perfect for reading convoluted legal material. I appreciated the translation.

06-01-2005, 01:09 PM	#81 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	The judge must not have had his coffee, or the parents were dressed improperly. Then again, without strange cases to test our boundaries how would we have any? Faith always provokes the loudest responses. Hope people can collect themselves so we see more deep thinking instead of the big Masterlock. <img src="http://www.masterlockimages.com/SiteStuff/Images/splash_locks2.jpg"> __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

06-01-2005, 04:51 PM	#87 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I am a newly minted daddy. That means I've been back and forth to the hospital and am short sleep. Apparently I should be reading this thread and issuing warnings, but I haven't got around to it. So here's the deal. I won't hold it against you previous to this post. But I WILL go back and read things, so if you continue whatever is against forum rules after this post, spankings will be issued. If you're really a dick about it, a temp ban may be headed your way. And may the Schwartz be with you. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-01-2005, 06:53 PM	#88 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	CONGRATS LEBELL......I AM SURE YOU'LL MAKE A GREAT FATHER __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-03-2005, 03:40 AM	#91 (permalink)
ScottKuma Insane Location: Maineville, OH	By the way, Pan... We are on the same side of this issue - both of us agree that it was a bone-headed ruling by the lower courts. And I think that both of us agree that the judge trying to pin ANY religion as "non-mainstream" is absolutely abhorrent and unconstitutional. I just don't think it's quite the time to start running around, shout that the sky is falling (KIDDING! ) , or begin the protesting...yet. Should this ruling not be corrected in normal measure, or should rulings like this continue, I'll be right there next to you. The key is that our system was DESIGNED that these types of decisions would correct themselves. These corrections just happen slowly - as I believe most governmental actions should happen. My argument is perhaps better applied to Congressional actions (law-making), but I think it applies here, too. A government that moves and acts too quickly often does so rashly. __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -Gerald R. Ford GoogleMap Me

06-04-2005, 07:34 AM	#97 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Perhaps this will get this thread back on track.....pertinent to the issue, and worthy of debate. I myself find the below article, and the fact this proposed legislation has gone unnoticed to be somewhat disturbing. There does seem to be a pattern forming , aimed at some form of national religion.....I suppose we shall see. Congress moves to restrict court rulings on God 05/18/05 "Vermont Guardian" WASHINGTON — Conservatives balk at accusations that the current Congress and the Bush administration are intent on turning the United States into a theocracy. Yet, a bill sponsored by 28 members of the U.S. House and Senate looks like a move in that direction. According to the text of the bill, the proposed Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 would remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "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." Commenting on the general trend, Bill Moyers noted in a March article for the New York Review of Books that the religious right backs nearly half the members of Congress. "Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the most influential Christian Right advocacy groups," he noted. If passed, the bill also would limit the ability of judges to interpret the Constitution if it involved "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." Judges who fail to comply could be impeached or prosecuted. Project Censored award-winning journalist W. David Kubiak charges that the bill would divorce U.S. jurisprudence from "our hard-won secular history and international norms." The Conservative Caucus has called it an important step that would prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from weighing in on "the acknowledgement of God (as in the Roy Moore 10 Commandments issue); and it also restricts federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign countries and international law [e.g., against torture, global warming, unjust wars, etc.] as the supreme law of our land." Thus far, the mainstream media has ignored the legislation. A May 16 search of Google News turned up no coverage, despite the fact that the office of lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL, told Kubiak last week, "We have the votes for passage." Copyright: Vermont Guardian. http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8923.htm lets try to discuss this....rather than beat each other up. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

06-01-2005, 04:00 PM	#86 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Interesting... I don't think anyone has ever thought me to be "right" of anything in particular, but I'm not a liberal either. Frankly, I'm not anything (though I tend to vote Libertarian). I am a strong supporter of the Xepherys party... where I firmly believe in my beliefs! At any rate, no offense taken (either way). I plan to be in this forum more often, so I'm sure we'll meet again! ~X

06-01-2005, 09:14 PM	#89 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Congrats to you and Sexymomma. I promise to behave myself. Permission to slap others silly if they do not?

06-03-2005, 06:44 AM	#92 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Quick = rash? Like the USA PATRIOT ACT? Hmmm, 'nuff said...

06-04-2005, 07:44 AM	#98 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Amazing..... it's my birthday and I don't want to get worked up, so I'll just leave it at that today. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-05-2005, 10:36 AM	#99 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	It's easier just to copy/paste this: --------------------------------------------------- [11:22] {blank}: why do people assume that a Government that doesn't shun relition is a Theocracy? [11:22] xepherys: ? [11:24] xepherys: well, if that quote is correct [11:24] xepherys: I agree [11:24] xepherys: "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." [11:25] xepherys: God is not, and should not be, the source of law, liberty or government in our country [11:25] xepherys: it may not truly be a step towards theocracy [11:25] xepherys: but I do believe that it's a step in the wrong direction [11:26] {blank}: that may well Be... [11:26] {blank}: but...The Ten Commandments form the basic tenets for our laws! [11:27] {blank}: or at least a subset of the 10 C [11:27] xepherys: shrug but they are man-made laws, they were not devised or provided as divine laws [11:27] xepherys: oddly enough, the ten commandments are just good, common moral sense... and have been law to some degree or another for thousands of years [11:27] xepherys: in many places [11:27] xepherys: including Egypt (non-Jew/Christian) [11:27] xepherys: uhhh... Persia [11:28] xepherys: so, the bible is written around the same common sense that our laws are... shrug what difference does that make? [11:31] xepherys: also, "remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "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." continues to try to remove a variety of checks and balances, granting greater power to the legislative and executive branches

06-06-2005, 08:01 AM	#101 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Of course, any such law would itself be subject to judicial review. Historically such efforts by maveric legistlators have failed and been exposed for the political grandstanding that they are. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-06-2005, 08:14 AM	#102 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I hope so, but it is scary that such efforts are being presented more and more often. I believe last year, Congress wanted to do something similar and limited Judges dockets and cases. Again, demonify the one branch you do not control and continue to do so until you find ways to control it. Perhaps, the Dems. are right in filibustering judges, for fear once stacked, laws like this will go through and not be challenged. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-06-2005, 09:54 AM	#104 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I say, I say, Sir. Thats some good readin'. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

06-06-2005, 11:09 AM	#106 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	1) I just love being talked down to by Ustwo..... (read in a Foghorn Leghorn voice? was that really necessary or can I assume you are talking down to me, because I saw no humour in it, just ego and a person trying to act superior.) 2) Your explanations do not dispute anything previously mentioned, in fact as roachboy pointed out, it only proves that the fears need to exist. For example, the Godfather clause, the poll taxes, gerrymandering, and so on all laws passed and upheld by different SC would thus be thrown out? That sounds pretty damned sad to me. This also coming from a person who chose to insinuate Wicca to Heaven's Gate and one who challenges sources yet refuses to offer up sources when asked himself. Or even on this thread where a judge legislated from the bench and you have refused to say the judge was wrong, yet you like this bill because it prevents judges from "making laws" (legislating). So you want judges to legislate they way you want them to, but not if you don't like the outcome. That is what your silence and your insinuations and challenging of the news articles tells me. It is ok for you to have a judge tell parents they can't allow their child to partake in their religious worship (which is a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution) but not to have (how many judges with ALL the facts and having heard both sides equally) decide the Schiavo case? Which judge's legislation is ok then and which isn't? One case wasn't even Federal but the GOP tried in vain (including demonizing judges and grandstanding) to make it so? If you are to go by the Constitution, then there is an express and purposeful seperation of powers and yet this legislation supresses that seperation. Also, sending a judge to prison because he didn't rule the way who wants? Obviously there will be a who involved to watch over and hold the judges to this law, so who is to be that power? Congress? So when Dems. come back into power and all of a sudden judges start making calls you dislike but go by this bill, are you going to convientently forget it was the GOP who pushed for this and cry about how the Dems are misusing the law? And how do you prevent Congress (either side) especially when they hold the executive branch from abusing the power provided from this bill? Sorry way too many questions for me, to like this bill or to be silent about it. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 06-06-2005 at 11:11 AM..

06-06-2005, 11:52 AM	#108 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	As far as ustwo's post, thank you for the direct text and your interpretation of it. I find it very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff when I have to research so many layers of commentary and interpretation and prove or disprove each layer accordingly. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-06-2005, 01:37 PM	#110 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Foghorn's southern gentleman accent and pomposity is perfect for reading convoluted legal material. I appreciated the translation.