Psycho-Babble Politics | about politics | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re:explanation for dummies » rayww

Posted by AuntieMel on April 8, 2005, at 13:20:28

In reply to Re: Be afraid. Be very, very afraid. » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on April 7, 2005, at 17:07:54

As you put it, not me.

These new bits mostly apply to appeal courts and the Supreme Court. It is legislation designed to limit their powers, and in my opinion neuter the third branch of government.

If this is allowed to pass, the slope just got very, very slippery.

The first part says that if a court has to decide if something is 'constitutional' it can *only* consider the original constitution and what was English common law *at the time* the constitution was adopted (1700s)

It says the court may NOT consider past court decisions, changing standards, treaties or anything else.

The second part I quoted says that if any government entity or official, from local to federal, says that God is the source of law or government then the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over that action.

An example would be if a trial judge were to stand up and say that all laws come from God and could quote bible verses - including 'an eye for an eye' this law would say that the Supreme court has no jurisdiction in regards to that statement.

The fact that this law in itself would be unconstitutional begs the question - 'But doesn't this law take the ability of the court to call it unconstitutional away?'

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Politics | Framed

poster:AuntieMel thread:480726
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050122/msgs/481634.html