![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 6, 2005, at 13:39:58
Another innocuous sounding bit of legislation "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005"
Pay attention to these two paragraphs:
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.
`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.'.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1070:A letter from Sen Pat Roberts (R-KS) says " Please consider opposing this bill. I realize that it is popular among Republican senators, but it appears to be unconstitutional. "
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=256&letter_id=237716641
Isnt that the point?
Posted by rayww on April 7, 2005, at 17:07:54
In reply to Be afraid. Be very, very afraid., posted by AuntieMel on April 6, 2005, at 13:39:58
Is there an explanation for Dummies?
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?'
Posted by rayww on April 8, 2005, at 19:10:03
In reply to Be afraid. Be very, very afraid., posted by AuntieMel on April 6, 2005, at 13:39:58
A reply to your respectful request on the faith board for my response:
Since man, by his carnal nature, has not proven himself capable of interpreting God's law correctly, or obeying it, I would oppose this bill.If man understood God well enough to know His mind and will on every matter, it would be a different story, but man cannot even agree on who God is.
We may as well give up on this one and let the dogs eat the vomit. I mean, the law and the courts are in such a mess right now, always at loggerheads within the politics of every issue. It takes years and millions of dollars to win a battle for right. Lawyers are bankrupting America with their greed, and there is so much justice waiting to be recompensed. Mercy cannot rob justice in the courts of heaven, and justice cannot rob mercy. Heaven is a continuation of what we build here. "The Miracle of Forgiveness" is a really good heavenly political book. When you first pick it up you think "I don't really need this because I am a loving forgiving person, I hold no grudge" but as you get into it a stark realization, "My God, I need to be forgiven". That, my dear friend, is the politics of heaven. If we could see earth as a pattern of what heaven is like, beginning with family as the base organizaion of government, and God at the head, we may then catch a glimpse of how a heavenly government might work on earth, but man is too boneheaded and thick skulled to even consider that one.
Can you conceive of a court system that would value justice and mercy, love and forgiveness? Or law abiding honest citizens, full of integrity, valor, vision and virtue?
Our American legal system might be the best in the world, but as long as there are people who try to get the best of it, rip off their neighbor, call evil good and good evil, there's not much hope.
So that's my full blown faith-warped opinion of the bill. If it passes there will be a royal mess of self-annointed judges who think they know how to interpret God's law.
What's your opinion of my opinion?
Posted by rayww on April 8, 2005, at 19:24:27
In reply to Re: Be afraid. Be very, very afraid. » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on April 8, 2005, at 19:10:03
http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100000386
The double quotes didn't link to the right book. Try this one.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 10, 2005, at 13:24:01
In reply to Re: Be afraid. Be very, very afraid. » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on April 8, 2005, at 19:10:03
Is that it is actually what I thought you would say.
The fear of many about this new law is that it opens up the avenue to make the US a theocracy. Which begs the question - who's religion.
I have read that there are many in the neocon far-right-wing religious movement (a small fraction of Americans) that believe the end-of-the world is coming, look forward to it, and want to help speed it up. And that this is why they want to keep things stirred up in the middle east.
It isn't too far a stretch to think that some of them might also think that a Christian vs Muslim fight would be the beginning of the end.
Like I said, I thought you would answer the way you did - I didn't see you as part of this fringe group.
Posted by rayww on April 10, 2005, at 22:27:06
In reply to Re: my opinion of your opinion » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on April 10, 2005, at 13:24:01
>>
I have read that there are many in the neocon far-right-wing religious movement (a small fraction of Americans) that believe the end-of-the world is coming, look forward to it, and want to help speed it up. And that this is why they want to keep things stirred up in the middle east.<<
We don't believe the earth will end, just the world. Our way to speed it up is to do more missionary work, and to increase personal righteousness in the earth so that faith can increase and miracles can be performed, and evil can be repented of before it has to be destroyed. We are talking here of two opposite approaches to speeding up the events of the latter days, one of war another of peace.
>>
It isn't too far a stretch to think that some of them might also think that a Christian vs Muslim fight would be the beginning of the end.<<
That's about the time we will concede to the argument that Mormons aren't Christians.>>
Like I said, I thought you would answer the way you did - I didn't see you as part of this fringe group.<<
I should be flattered then instead of offended that you thought I might be part of the fringe group : )
Posted by rayww on April 11, 2005, at 14:28:26
In reply to Re: my opinion of your opinion » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on April 10, 2005, at 13:24:01
Posted by AuntieMel on April 11, 2005, at 16:59:03
In reply to AuntieMel do you like me? (nm), posted by rayww on April 11, 2005, at 14:28:26
Of course. The only people I dislike in the world are the ones that are purposefully mean.
But that's probably not what you meant.
So - on a more personal level - I find you to be interesting to talk to, reasonable (when not too fired up {grin}) and a kind person. So, of course I like you.
But it doesn't mean I have to agree wigh you, right? For that matter, things would be quite boring if I did.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 11, 2005, at 17:00:17
In reply to Be afraid. Be very, very afraid., posted by AuntieMel on April 6, 2005, at 13:39:58
Posted by gromit on April 13, 2005, at 3:20:55
In reply to Re:explanation for dummies » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on April 8, 2005, at 13:20:28
> 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.Is this also an attempt to get rid of that pesky Bill of Rights? Except for maybe the right to bear arms part I think conservatives would love to see it go away.
> 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.I think what you said speaks for itself, it's just so ridiculous on it's face I can't believe it would ever pass. Yes, maybe the defendant did in fact assassinate the liberal judge but hey God said it was ok. So how would they go about proving the Bible is the word of God? Or of course prove that there is a God in the first place.
> 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?'
Ha, that's just what I thought when I read your first post.
To me this just seems like a continuation of what they've been trying to do for years. Somehow, someway, Roe vs Wade has to be overturned or I guess in this case nullified, that's job one. Domestic spying needs to be increased, the so called "Patriot Act" doesn't go nearly far enough in their minds or alledged minds. The police need more power, no search should be illegal even if it's obviously unreasonable etc. There are many others I'm sure but those are the ones that came to mind immediately.
I hope the lunatic fringe, moral majority or whatever else you want to call them isn't strong enough to push this thru, I don't think they are. I'm not going to worry, most of the legislators have some marbles left and besides they won't do anything that would kill their chances to get re-elected like this surely would. If this thing did pass they might end up regretting not taking peoples guns away, it would be pretty good motivation for another revolution.
More than anything I'm sick of people trying to impose their religion or atheism on me. Why can't people just go to church, not believe in God, worship the devil, their gerbil or whatever without trying to suck me into it? I don't care if their kids want to pray in school as long as the school doesn't force my kids to do so. When my son gets older if he chooses to pray I'm not going to discourage it but I don't want government or lawyers involved either way.
One more thing, I wish conservative politicians would stop talking about less government and more personal rights, anyone paying *any* attention can see it's a lie. I believe according to the Bible lying is a sin, ie it's against it.
Sorry for the off topic rant. I'm in hate the world mode lately.
To make up for it google for gerbil+armageddon. If you are easily offended don't do it, but otherwise it's hilarious. I listen to this when I need a laugh...
Rick
Posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 15:49:36
In reply to Re:explanation for dummies, posted by gromit on April 13, 2005, at 3:20:55
What's frightening to me is that it is actually popular with the Republican senators (and house, too, I assume.)
Whatever happened to the old 'conservatives?' I could maybe support that platform. Maybe.
Bill of rights may be ok, because it was passed at the same time as the constitution. But the rest of the ammendments? Hey - I could lose the right to vote here.
I don't know about a revolution, but I'm looking at some former Eastern bloc countries for a place to move. They haven't forgotten what it's like to have no freedom.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 16:13:48
In reply to Re:explanation for dummies, posted by gromit on April 13, 2005, at 3:20:55
Posted by gromit on April 14, 2005, at 0:29:08
In reply to Re:explanation for dummies, posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 15:49:36
Hi AuntieMel,
You're right about revolution I guess, we have become so complacent. If we had this passive attitude back then we wouldn't be a sovereign nation today. I think we've been heading in the direction of the Eastern bloc countries, now it seems they've decided a theocracy would be even better.
Rick
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.