• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Beginning of the End: The Constitution Restoration Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Time to call your representatives people.

Introducing The Constitution Restoration Act
Say Hello To Taliban America And Goodbye To Godless Judges, Courts And Law
by W. David Kubiak April 03, 2005

Tired of waiting for the Second Coming to enforce Christ's rule on Earth? Fortunately, so is your Congress and they know how to "bring it on."

Just when you thought the corporatist/Christian Coalition had milked the 9/11 "surprise" for all it was worth in powers, profits and votes, we regret to report that you may have to think again. Just in case you've briefly fallen behind on your rightwing mailing lists, you might have missed the March 3rd filing of Senate bill S. 520 and House version is H.R. 1070, AKA the "Constitution Restoration Act" (CRA).

In the worshipful words of the Conservative Caucus, this historic legislation will "RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION!", mainly by barring ANY federal court or judge from ever again reviewing "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."

In other words, the bill ensures that God's divine word (and our infallible leaders' interpretation thereof) will hereafter trump all our pathetic democratic notions about freedom, law and rights -- and our courts can't say a thing. This, of course, will take "In God We Trust" to an entirely new level, because soon He (and His personally anointed political elite) will be all the legal recourse we have left.

This is not a joke, a test, or a fit of libertarian paranoia. The CRA already has 28 sponsors in the House and Senate, and a March 20 call to lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby's office assures us that "we have the votes for passage." This is a highly credible projection as Bill Moyers observes in his 3/24/05 "Welcome to Doomsday" piece in the New York Review of Books: "The corporate, political, and religious right's hammerlock... extends to the US Congress. Nearly half of its members before the election-231 legislators in all (more since the election)-are backed by the religious right... 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."

This stunning bill and the movement behind it deserve immediate crash study on at least 3 different fronts.

1. Its hostile divorce of American jurisprudence from our hard-won secular history and international norms. To again quote the Conservative Caucus: "This important bill will restrict the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that permitted by the U.S. Constitution, including on the subject of 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. - ed.] as the supreme law of our land."

Re the last point, envision some doddering judges who still revere our Declaration of Independence's "decent respect to the opinions of mankind," and suppose they invoke in their rulings some international precepts from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women or, God forbid, the Geneva Conventions. Well, under the CRA that would all be clearly illegal and, thank God, that's the last we'd ever hear from them.

2. The political implications of replacing "we the people" with a Christian deity as the "sovereign source" of all our laws.

Imagine hyper-zealous officers or "entities" of the Federal, State, or local government (like a governor, legislature or school board) that mandate Christian prayers, rituals and/or statuary in public buildings under their control. Were this to happen, some local Jews, Muslims and/or Buddhists might be moved to hire a lawyer and legally object. But if the CRA passes, their objection would be beyond any court's jurisdiction and that's the last we'd ever hear of that. It in fact demands "impeachment, conviction, and removal of judges" who dare to even hear a case that challenges its "Last Days" morphing of Christian church and state. (Just how our new Sovereign Source of Government's advocacy of public executions for adultery, gay-ness, contraception and blasphemy will fit into our current corrections system still remains to be seen.)

3 The incessant mainstream media blackout on the bill's existence and import.

The potential impact of the Constitution Restoration Act on American life, law and politics is so radical and vast that you would expect a boiling national debate. Yet just as with the crimes and questions of 9/11, everyone in the media seems terrifically busy looking the other way. If you want yet another dramatic metric of US journalistic dysfunction, try Googling "Constitution Restoration Act" in their News category and see what you get. Today, three weeks after the bill was filed, I find a grand total of three throwaway mentions in Alabama's Shelby County Reporter, the Decatur Daily, and the Massachusetts Daily Collegian. ("Terry Schiavo" in contrast will net you over a thousand news hits, and "Michael Jackson" just passed 36,000 with a bullet.)

If the Alabama paper interest seems a little odd or sponsor Shelby's name a bit familiar, you should recall that this old boy AL senator was high among those same wonderful folks who kicked off the 9/11 cover-up. As his Senate bio proudly relates:

"From 1995 to 2003, Senator Shelby served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In this capacity, he and the other committee members provided oversight of the intelligence community, and following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Senator Shelby served diligently to investigate the intelligence failures that led to those attacks." [Emphasis demanded again.]

Got that? First he "oversees" intelligence for six years before 9/11, then "diligently investigates" its bizarre "failures" for two years more, and finally finds--in a no-fault judgment--it was all due to "deep institutional defects" and "systemic miscommunication" that he'd apparently never noticed or heard about before. Having so brilliantly defended the country before 9/11 and the official story since, some seem to find it comforting that he's now busy defending our court-harassed Constitution with a legally bulletproofed God. Some, alas, do not -- feel comforted, that is, either by Shelby's blurry oversight or fundamentalist agenda, not to mention the Orwellian performance of our autistic corporate press.

In the meantime, however, before the CRA takes force and reduces legal education to a Bible study course, what say we undertake a little Constitutional defense of our own? To get up to speed on the current Christian right agenda, Moyers' "Welcome to Doomsday", Katherine Yurica's "The Despoiling of America" and John "The 9/11 Truth Candidate" Buchanan's "Fixing America" are excellent places to start.

None of these analyses offer a silver bullet or paint a pretty picture, but as students of 9/11 now know, spreading the courage to face the truth is really the only hope we've got.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=104&ItemID=7569

And here's a link to the House version of the Bill without commentary: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1070:
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
bang%20head.JPG
 

Screaming_Gremlin

My QB is a Dick and my coach is a Nutt
Drozmight said:
The supreme court 'll bitch slap this I'd imagine.

I was about to say the same. From reading this, the act isn't an ammendment to the consitution so the courts will just strike it down.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Old, and even back then it probably wasn't going to get too far. The true Republicans in Congress would likely balk at the notion, especially after the Schiavo case.
 
Drozmight said:
The supreme court 'll bitch slap this I'd imagine.

I don't doubt it-- but like the Schiavo case, I think the bill is engineered to lose and drum up even more support.

I can hear the cry "Activist judges!" already.
 

Crandle

Member
for a second I thought this would be related to the "Constitution in exile" libertarians like to talk about

but nooooooooo it's just another Wank for Jesus
 

SFA_AOK

Member
I saw dubya's former religious adviser on a show called Newsnight (on in the UK) the other day and he said people in Europe don't seem to get that seperation of church and state means that there's not a state-appointed church (or other religious organisation), not that, for example, the 3 branches can't be influenced by religion... That sounded suspect to me, how would Americans here react to that?
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
SFA_AOK said:
I saw dubya's former religious adviser on a show called Newsnight (on in the UK) the other day and he said people in Europe don't seem to get that seperation of church and state means that there's not a state-appointed church (or other religious organisation), not that, for example, the 3 branches can't be influenced by religion... That sounded suspect to me, how would Americans here react to that?

"Standard-issue Republican response," that's how.
 
SFA_AOK said:
I saw dubya's former religious adviser on a show called Newsnight (on in the UK) the other day and he said people in Europe don't seem to get that seperation of church and state means that there's not a state-appointed church (or other religious organisation), not that, for example, the 3 branches can't be influenced by religion... That sounded suspect to me, how would Americans here react to that?

That's a fuzzy statement on his part. This issue I have is the influence. A guy can campaign and say he's a religeous person, that's cool-- but when he starts mixing religious dogma and law, he's crossed the line. Comes up a lot in abortion debate, right-to-die (like the recent Shiavo case) and also in a lot of small turn wars over what gets said in classrooms.
 

Dilbert

Member
xsarien said:
Old, and even back then it probably wasn't going to get too far. The true Republicans in Congress would likely balk at the notion, especially after the Schiavo case.
It's not the result, it's the intention.

Even if there's no chance in hell that it might pass, it still ought to be front-page news. The fact that elected officials are willing to propose this kind of nonsense as a potential law is FRIGHTENING.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
-jinx- said:
It's not the result, it's the intention.

Even if there's no chance in hell that it might pass, it still ought to be front-page news. The fact that elected officials are willing to propose this kind of nonsense as a potential law is FRIGHTENING.

Maybe it's just that I'm a hardened cynic at this point, Jinx. :) As sick, twisted, and completely contrary to the founders' intentions, I'm just not SURPRISED anymore. Hell, if we started executing abortion doctors in the Senate chambers with full C-Span coverage, I doubt I'd flinch.

All I can really say is that those who put shit like this forward are likely digging their own political graves. The Republicans - the ones who still believe in limited government - would be smart to isolate themselves from the "Republicans" like Santorum and DeLay.
 
I wonder how many law makers actually believe in this restoration and are not simply playing politics, pleasing some of the most ardent religious constituents at the expense of an apathic majority.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Conservative Caucus said:
this historic legislation will "RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION!", mainly by barring ANY federal court or judge from ever again reviewing "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.

Drozmight said:
The supreme court 'll bitch slap this I'd imagine.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said:
And when somebody goes by that monument, I don't think they're studying each one of the commandments. It's a symbol of the fact that government comes — derives its authority from God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate symbol to be on State grounds.

Remember, Bush said he admires Scalia and Clarence Thomas (who almost always votes with Scalia) the most of all the Supreme Court Justices. So if there should be any openings on the bench while Bush is president...
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
what.gif


...acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
Gee, that's funny...

"As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." -- signed by founding father John Adams and ratified by the Senate (Article XI of the Treaty of Peace with Tripoli)

And there are a million more.

If only the 9/11 planes had been filled with these fundamentalist fuckers who've hijacked our country and are running it into the ground in the name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Jesus fucking Christ...
 

tedtropy

$50/hour, but no kissing on the lips and colors must be pre-separated
demon said:
Jesus fucking Christ...

Praise his name! Also, if you could kill a baby-hating liberal on your way out that'd be wonderful, thanks. :D
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
tedtropy said:
Praise his name! Also, if you could kill a baby-hating liberal on your way out that'd be wonderful, thanks. :D
I'm sorry, what was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of a dead baby's skull crunching in my sandwich while watching Queer Eye For The Straight Guy as I scheme up more ways to infringe on Christian people's rights to worship Jesus Christ in the privacy of their home.
 

SteveMeister

Hang out with Steve.
demon said:
Gee, that's funny...

"As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." -- signed by founding father John Adams and ratified by the Senate (Article XI of the Treaty of Peace with Tripoli)

And there are a million more.

If only the 9/11 planes had been filled with these fundamentalist fuckers who've hijacked our country and are running it into the ground in the name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Jesus fucking Christ...

Christain faiths believe that Jesus is the son of God. There's nothing in this quote:
...acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
that Adams' quote contradicts. After all, Jews and Muslims believe in God, too, as do numerous other faiths...
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
SteveMeister said:
Christain faiths believe that Jesus is the son of God. There's nothing in this quote:

that Adams' quote contradicts. After all, Jews and Muslims believe in God, too, as do numerous other faiths...
Oh please, we all know where this shit is coming from. How many Muslims and Jews are behind this legislation?
 

MIMIC

Banned
SteveMeister said:
Christain faiths believe that Jesus is the son of God. There's nothing in this quote:

that Adams' quote contradicts. After all, Jews and Muslims believe in God, too, as do numerous other faiths...

Bush is Jewish?? Color me surprised....

Oh yeah: THIS SHIT IS AS FUCKED UP AS SHIT CAN GET.
 

909er

Member
-jinx- said:
It's not the result, it's the intention.

Even if there's no chance in hell that it might pass, it still ought to be front-page news. The fact that elected officials are willing to propose this kind of nonsense as a potential law is FRIGHTENING.

This doesn't frighten me at all. It's engineered to drum up support from the Christian Right. I'm willing to bet that everyone of those cosponsers comes from a heavily conservative religious district. They don't care if this one wins or loses, because the fact that they sponsered it means they will be reelected by that constituency. I highly doubt more than 5 senators will support this one, becuase they have more to lose since they are representative of a much more diverse group(a while state, as opposed to a voting district).

In the end, real Republicans and Democrats will shoot this one down. If there is one thing that the Schiavo case has shown, the Christian Right is no where near as big or influential as was previously thought.
 

SteveMeister

Hang out with Steve.
demon and MIMIC, you clearly neglected to read what I was responding to (even though it was one of your posts, demon). Demon said that John Adams maintained that the US government would not be based on Christian beliefs, as if that contradicted the government acknowledging God. All I said was that Adams' statement does NOT contradict the government acknowledging God. Pay attention.
 

MIMIC

Banned
SteveMeister said:
demon and MIMIC, you clearly neglected to read what I was responding to (even though it was one of your posts, demon). Demon said that John Adams maintained that the US government would not be based on Christian beliefs, as if that contradicted the government acknowledging God. All I said was that Adams' statement does NOT contradict the government acknowledging God. Pay attention.

God is NOT the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government; so allowing for a govenment official's protection of using that line while enforcing the law does in fact go against Adams.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
SteveMeister said:
demon and MIMIC, you clearly neglected to read what I was responding to (even though it was one of your posts, demon). Demon said that John Adams maintained that the US government would not be based on Christian beliefs, as if that contradicted the government acknowledging God. All I said was that Adams' statement does NOT contradict the government acknowledging God. Pay attention.
Yeah, I understand that SteveMeister. Technically, you're correct. But I'm looking at this realistically, not just how it's written on paper: they're only saying "God" instead of "Christian God", "Christianity" and "Jesus Christ" because that absolves the legislation of being tied to a specific religion (hmm I wonder which one), which would be much more blatantly unconstitutional than it already is.
 

MIMIC

Banned
And also, about the word "acknowledgement.":

If you're going to respect someone's acknowledgement of something, what's to stop you from making that acknowledgement an actual acknowledgement? (i.e. God's word (whatever the conservatives think that may be) is the law now)
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
MIMIC said:
And also, about the word "acknowledgement.":

If you're going to respect someone's acknowledgement of something, what's to stop you from making that acknowledgement an actual acknowledgement? (i.e. God's word (whatever the conservatives think that may be) is the law now)
Point acknowledged.
 

heavenly

Member
This comes as no surprise. The book of Revelation speak on these things. The endtime issues are fast approaching. Our nation will repel the U.S. Consititution and form a religio-polictical system that mirrors Old Europe during the Dark Ages. It's a gradual and subtle shift into a new and expected paradigm for our country, and eventually for the whole world. Embrace yourself, folks. The ride is about to get alot more bumpy.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Damn neoconservatives are ruining this country. They should be called insane religious fanatics, because that's what they are. They sure as hell aren't conserving anything, and they aren't new.


Seems like so many people are in the dark so might as well as state the obvious:

Religion had little to do with forming our country's law. Our law system was based of English law, which was based of pagan Anglo/Saxan laws and Roman laws. The basis for the Roman law system was formed hundred of years before Christ.

A majority of the Founding Fathers were deists. Basically agnostics that believed that there may have been a god that formed earth and then abandoned it. When Thomas Jefferson referenced 'god' in the Declaration of Independence, he called something like Nature's God. Not the Christian God, nor any religion in specific. A generic one that could even apply to agnostics and atheists.

Many founding fathers spoke out against christianity. Jefferson believed that Chrisitianity was evil, but that the core of Jesus's teachings were valuable.

Many people came over to the Americas for religious freedom.
 

Dilbert

Member
909er said:
This doesn't frighten me at all. It's engineered to drum up support from the Christian Right.
I'm not frightened that it might pass -- I'm frightened that I live in a country where some of the elected officials are either ignorant of or could give a rat's ass about basic Constitutional principles.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
-jinx- said:
I'm not frightened that it might pass -- I'm frightened that I live in a country where some of the elected officials are either ignorant of or could give a rat's ass about basic Constitutional principles.

Meritocracy... where we don't rely on the general populace to be smart enough to elect people that will do them good.
 

Mashing

Member
Meh... Congressmen are just in it for themselves. As a worker pointed out they can actually vote on their fucking pay raises. What the fuck kind of shit is that? He also stated that there are a LOT of those such proposals in the history of Congress. It's all about the money. If there is one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on it's making more money for themselves.

I was disugsted when I heard that.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
If this goes through, i think republicans will face an uphill battle next election.

Definitely a possibility. Depends on several factors, but if the next candidate is like Bush and as many conservatives like me are sick of this neconservative, christian reconstruction crap, the Democrats will in favor as a lesser of two evils.
 

pwn3d

Member
SteveMeister said:
Christain faiths believe that Jesus is the son of God. There's nothing in this quote:

...acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

that Adams' quote contradicts. After all, Jews and Muslims believe in God, too, as do numerous other faiths...

If that's the case it should be no problem if the bill were to read

...acknowledgment of Allah as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Somehow I don't think certain segments of the US population would like the legislation so much if it was worded in this way!

heavenly said:
This comes as no surprise. The book of Revelation speak on these things. The endtime issues are fast approaching. Our nation will repel the U.S. Consititution and form a religio-polictical system that mirrors Old Europe during the Dark Ages. It's a gradual and subtle shift into a new and expected paradigm for our country, and eventually for the whole world. Embrace yourself, folks. The ride is about to get alot more bumpy.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Revelation talks about events in first century Rome; it doesn't mention the US anywhere!
 

heavenly

Member
pwn3d said:
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Revelation talks about events in first century Rome; it doesn't mention the US anywhere!

Sorry, Skip. I'm not a preterist believer. Some events in Revelation are yet future, so their are a lot of things to be fulfilled. However, you cannot decipher Revelation without Daniel.

In Rev. 12, the lamb with two horns that rose out of the earth (non-populated area) is America, representing "freedom of religion" and "democracy", with horns representing power. The beast is Rome, which was wounded and now has been healed. The lamb will give life to the beast (Papacy), which you see happening right now.
 

pwn3d

Member
heavenly said:
Sorry, Skip. I'm not a preterist believer.

Neither am I. I'm an agnostic who finds Christian mythology interesting to study.

heavenly said:
Some events in Revelation are yet future, so their are a lot of things to be fulfilled.

Do you have any evidence at all from credible Biblical scholars to support this? My understanding of the text is that the author saw the unfilfilled "prophecies" as things that would come to pass very shortly, destroying the Roman empire and its cult of emperor worship.

heavenly said:
However, you cannot decipher Revelation without Daniel.

It's true that both Dan and Rev are part of the genre of Apocalyptic literature and existed to fulfill psychological needs to the audiences to whom they were written. There is some symbolism in common between the two books as well. However our discussion of Daniel showed that you were ignorant of the text's authorship and the history of Palestine at the time it was written. It appears that you are making the same mistake with Rev.

heavenly said:
In Rev. 12, the lamb with two horns that rose out of the earth (non-populated area) is America, representing "freedom of religion" and "democracy", with horns representing power.

Are you talking about Rev 13:11? What possible evidence is there that that this beast (not a lamb as you quoted - the text says the beast's horns were like a lamb's so maybe that is what you were thinking of) represents the US? Furthermore, the text doesn't talk about what the two horns represent, except to say that they are like a lamb. Gilmour (The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible, pg 961) associates this beast with the beat of Rev 11:7. The fact that the beast has two horns like a lamb likely indicates that the beast is a mockery of Christ. Raymond Brown puts it thus (An Introduction to the New Testament, pgs 792-793, emphasis mine):

Raymond Brown said:
The second beast, the one from the earth (12:11-18), is an evil parody of Christ. It has two horns like a lamb but it speaks like a dragon; later it is associated with a false prophet (16:13; 19:20; 20:10); it works signs and wonders, like those of Elijah; it has people marked on the right hand or the forehead, even as the servants of God are sealed on their forehead (7:3; 14:1). This beast portrayed as rising from the earth, i.e., from the land mass of Asia Minor, is emperor worship (and the Pagan priesthood promoting it), which began very early there. The wound of the beast by the sword (13:14) may be Nero's suicide; the survival, Domitian's reign. The description in 13:18 ends with perhaps the most famous image in Rev: The number of the beast, a human number that calls for understanding, is 666. By gematria (where letters also serve as numerals, as in Latin), the Hebrew consonants transliterating the Greek form of the name Nero Ceasar total to 666

heavenly said:
The beast is Rome, which was wounded and now has been healed.

I assume you are referring to the first beast? Yes, this refers to first century Rome.

heavenly said:
The lamb will give life to the beast (Papacy), which you see happening right now..

As is discussed in my quote from Brown, we can readily identify the beast with Emperor Nero. The survival of the beast from its wound can then be attributed to Domitian's reign. This interpretation fits well with the text and with history; it makes no sense to attribute it to current events.
 

Shinobi

Member
Mashing said:
Meh... Congressmen are just in it for themselves. As a worker pointed out they can actually vote on their fucking pay raises. What the fuck kind of shit is that? He also stated that there are a LOT of those such proposals in the history of Congress. It's all about the money. If there is one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on it's making more money for themselves.

I was disugsted when I heard that.

Heh, politicians being allowed to vote their pay raises isn't that stunning...that's likely true for almost every level of government on the planet. Which doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
 

Raven.

Banned
gamepro said:
If this goes through, i think republicans will face an uphill battle next election. .

This won't be allowed to go through until a few of the supreme have a coincidentially beneficial(for them) tragic accidents/deaths/etc, and get replaced with proper judges.
After that they don't have to worry about next election, the systems are in place. :D, this could lead to a... a... a... Banana, Banana, BANANA...
REPUBLIC
:lol

Nah, it won't happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom