The Constitution Restoration Act Of 2004: The Most Important Legislation In The Last Fifty Years

Last week, a bill was introduced in both chambers of Congress to "limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism." The House version is H.R. 3799, and the Senate version is S. 2082. The bill is titled, "The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004." Initial sponsors of the bill include Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL), Rep. Michael Pence (IN), Sen. Richard Shelby (AL), Sen. Zell Miller (GA), Sen. Sam Brownback (KS), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC). Even though the introduction of this bill received little national media attention, it is the most important legislation in the last fifty years.

I was privileged to be in attendance at the press conference in Prattville, Alabama when former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, Rep. Aderholt, Sen. Shelby, Sen. Brownback, and Ambassador Alan Keyes formally announced the introduction of this bill to the media. Also in attendance were conservative luminaries such as Phyllis Schlafly and Howard Phillips. The bill was drafted by a star-studded legal team including Chief Justice Moore's lead counsel, Herb Titus.

The passage of H.R. 3799 and S. 2082 should be regarded as the most important item on the conservative agenda this year! It is no hyperbole to say that the passage of this bill is significantly more important than who wins the White House this November. Yes, I really mean that.

You see, what difference does it make who wins a presidential or congressional election if neither party will faithfully discharge their duty to the U.S. Constitution? We have seen Republican and Democratic presidents come and go. The same goes for congressmen and senators. Yet, government continues to get bigger and bigger, while freedom gets smaller and smaller. Neither has either major party done anything to reverse the trend toward socialism and globalism.

One of the major reasons for this unfortunate set of circumstances is an out-of-control federal judiciary. For the last fifty years, federal courts have run roughshod over the Constitution. For all practical purposes, America is now controlled by a tyrannical oligarchy of federal judges.

More by Chuck Baldwin

By Chuck Baldwin

Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon

Is this the same bill?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

is it a bill to make us a religious theocracy or not?

Originally posted by Amuk
Is this the same bill?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

is it a bill to make us a religious theocracy or not?

No this is a different one...

No its the same one here is a quote from your source

Accordingly, under Sec. 102 of this bill, "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 acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

This means, that the federal judiciary would be prohibited from interfering with any expression of religious faith by any elected local, state, or federal official. In other words, federal judges could not prevent the Ten Commandments from being displayed in public buildings or Nativity Scenes from appearing on court house lawns or "under God" from being recited in the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers being spoken in public schools, etc. This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts in these matters.

Its a bill to make a state religion more or less thats how I read it.

Kinda like the Patriot act is intended to make a police state

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Amuk]

Here's a copy of the House Bill to read!

But this part here is very very interesting and gives me real hope.

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 the constitutional law and English common law.

Awesome, this will wipe out all other influences with regard to Constitutional Law. If it is truely the law of the land, then it can only be interpreted by itself and the law surrounding it.

Originally posted by Amuk
Its a bill to make a state religion more or less thats how I read it.
Kinda like the Patriot act is intended to make a police state

The Bill numbers are different.

This one is a restoration of the consitution, the under god, is tradition I believe...
I'm not sure too much about the other bill i'll go back and take a deeper look, if you think it's the same bill, trash this thread I don't wanna take up bandwidth space...

I would like a further look at the meaning of this section

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.'.

this seems to me to end the seperation of church and state. God is not the highest law in America the constitution is. It seems to me to pretty much destroy the supreme court as one of the checks and balances.

Am I wrong but does this basicaly establish a state religion? Can a state judge rule EVERYONE must worship Jesus because the bible says so? That IS the law of God isnt it?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Most people (and judges) seem to only refer to the first sentence of amendment one when the issue of religion and the constitution are brought forth. The second sentence is ignored but to me clearly states that the federal government has no business making any law or ruling regarding religion.

Both sentences together plainly say in simple language "no law for or against"
as it stands now judicial fiat and public programming have bastardized the constitution.

The law cited at the beginning of this post seems to correct things back to what was said in the constitution in the first place.

Fears of a state (federal) religion are unfounded as long as both sentences apply now and in the future.

We don't need judges to tell us what our eyes can plainly read.

Amuk reading the 1st amendment I would have to say one would have to refer to an individual states constitution in determining whether or not a state judge may or may not rule on religious matters, it would appear to be a states right issue not a federal issue.

Unless of course you let federal judges rule by fiat that is.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Phoenix]

The "assumed" power of the judiciary to rule on constitutionality is from Marby vs Madison in 1803. The "courts" have no such power so restoration of the constitution is redundant. Just impeach all liberal judges.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Amuk reading the 1st amendment I would have to say one would have to refer to an individual states constitution in determining whether or not a state judge may or may not rule on religious matters, it would appear to be a states right issue not a federal issue.
Unless of course you let federal judges rule by fiat that is.

Dont get me wrong I am for religious freedom and I dont think having the ten comandants on a court house wall or a manger scene at Christmas hurts anyone. I am for your right to worship as long as you are for mine NOT to, or worship another God altogather.

As long as the first admendment is being followed I have no problem with it. The only thing wrong with school prayers is would you want your child to be FORCED to pray to SATAN every morning? Would this bill not allow it as long as a local judge OK it? I just get real leary when state and religion are mentioned in the same breath. Just look at the middle east and you can see why.

Originally posted by Amuk
As long as the first admendment is being followed I have no problem with it. The only thing wrong with school prayers is would you want your child to be FORCED to pray to SATAN every morning? Would this bill not allow it as long as a local judge OK it? I just get real leary when state and religion are mentioned in the same breath. Just look at the middle east and you can see why.

I don't want anyone to be forced to do anything. As a firm constitutionalist in belief (not always in practice, but working on it) I have to say to the feds "butt out" on this subject.

As to the local issues they are much more easy to change either through legislation, amendment, lawsuit, election or for that matter impeachment if needed - all I can say is read your states constitution and see what it says in regards to religion.

All else fails moving is an option.

**I want to add that believing in a higher power but belonging to no organized religion of any kind I am not basing my opinion on faith but on what I believe to be the law as it was written in the US Bill of Rights.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Phoenix]

Originally posted by Phoenix
I don't want anyone to be forced to do anything. As a firm constitutionalist in belief (not always in practice, but working on it) I have to say to the feds "butt out" on this subject.

I think we are pretty much on the same page on this one, as long as the first admendment is being followed I agree. The swing is going too far the other direction now, where we are interfering in peoples right TOO worship if we dont watch out we will wind up like France where scarves for muslims are not allowed there is a big dufference in being forced to worship the "school God" and wearing a cross or a jesus/buddah/allah/etc loves you tee shirt.

People, please! This does NOT establish a Theocrasy...quite the contrary!

Remember the good ole days when the Supreme Court didn't even hear cases, except when it concerned State vs State, or States vs "The Feds"?

If anything, this bill will put the Supreme Court back on track and free it up to do it's original job, instead of hearing cases that can easily be handled at the Federal Court level.

Besides, if you read the Constitution and accept it word-for-word, it says the Feds will "make no law" concerning the establishment of a religion. It's really very simple. In Sweden, you PAY TAXES the government quite openly says is for the Episcopalian Church. In England, the same is done for The Church Of England.

In a nutshell, our Constitution frees us from a government that collects tithing for the Church, in the form of taxes...and THAT won't change!

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Toelint]

Originally posted by Toelint
In a nutshell, our Constitution frees us from a government that collects tithing for the Church, in the form of taxes...and THAT won't change!

It means a lot more than just paying taxes to a church, it means that your children will not be forced to worship a different God than yours or forced to worship a God you dont believe in, it goes a lot deeper than merely the right not to tithe