« Beaten to the punch. | Main | Racin' »
April 3, 2005
Hello Theocracy!
Senate Republicans are trying to pass a law called the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2005." What does this law do?
Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
I was always a big fan of article VI in the constitution, which states:
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
But maybe it's time to get rid of that cumbersome constitution. The Constitution let Terri die!
Posted by Brendan at April 3, 2005 11:23 AM
Comments
senators make plenty of dumb bills every year, this one will not get past sponsership, cause the law itself is unconstitutional.
Posted by: Kled at April 4, 2005 12:07 PM
Says you!
Posted by: Brendan at April 7, 2005 6:58 PM
yeah man, because 'unconstitutional' means so much in the current united states of christians. Have you heard about the Activist Pharmacists? Man--this country is full of fuck ups who wouldn't know the constitution if it stabbed them in the gut.
Posted by: jr at April 9, 2005 12:15 AM
I'm pretty sure there were a lot of civilians who felt the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. I for one did and still do. Yet that's gotten into the books. Now we have a neo-con mouthpiece propping it up for the remainder of his administration's term. Plus, doesn't a law attempting to reverse the judicial decisions of several local, state, and federal courts and inspired by neo-con opportunism in a 15 year-old guardianship case seem arguably constitutional? Wasn't that a long and choppy interrogative sentence?
Posted by: The_SCSIBug at April 11, 2005 10:12 AM