Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2004-02-18 02:58pm

Probably the most ironically named piece of legislation since the "Religious Liberties Restoration Act." So far I've only found it mentioned on Fox or the Pentehostile websites: the Fox article is here.

Bill Would Protect Religious Displays

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

ATLANTA — Sen. Richard Shelby and Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama have introduced bills in the Senate and House that would define public religious displays as constitutional rights not subject to review by federal courts.

"If a judge did not act appropriately then, of course, impeachment would be one of the options that the Congress could consider," Aderholt told Fox News.

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (search) was written in part by former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (search), who lost his legal battle to display the Ten Commandments (search ) in Alabama's Supreme Court Building.

Moore said the goal would be to restore the right of people to pray in school before lunch or of public officials to acknowledge God while on the job. But opponents say the legislation is unnecessary, and religion in the United States has been supported by government's refusal to interfere in it.

They also argue that the bill violates the separation of church and state (search) doctrine, but supporters say the legislation is needed because too many federal judges have taken to activist interpretations.

The bill would take the decisions of church-state separation out of the hands of federal judges, but it's unclear whether the law would pass constitutional muster in the eyes of the very courts it tries to regulate.

Hopefully this steaming piece of feces won't make it out of committee.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2004-02-18 02:59pm

and if it does so what, id sue the government against this law. Laws cannot override judicial review.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-02-18 04:14pm

I would have thought they'd seek an amendment in order to avoid "judicial tyranny." Guess not, but its not like they don't already start praying when I bitch at them

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-02-18 04:22pm

I love this shit like "activist judge." Its like "material breach", or the oft-maligned "homocide bomber". Meaningless buzzwords used to advance a cause.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-02-18 04:28pm

Now, correct me if I'm wrong.

This government is clearly trying to decide what is 'right' and 'wrong' for each family. They are doing it around something that is, functionally, harmless to those participating.

Yet, when the WHO wants the US government to decide what is 'right' and 'wrong' for each family based on actualy scientific evidence, we get shoveled volumous bullshit about it being 'not there place'.

A bigger group of hypocrits you'll not often find.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-02-18 04:33pm

Yet, when the WHO wants the US government to decide what is 'right' and 'wrong' for each family based on actualy scientific evidence, we get shoveled volumous bullshit about it being 'not there place'.

That's because the WHO is a "group of unelected, faceless bureaucrats(possibly under the influence of the Illuminati)", while the representatives are "representing the sovereign, god-fearing people of the United States". Go figure

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2004-02-18 06:05pm

This belongs in N&P.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2004-02-18 10:16pm

Great! If this passes, somebody put up a monument to the Koran!

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-18 11:08pm

This is, legally speaking, the equivilant to Darkstar trying to set Star Wars canon policy.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-02-19 04:44am

Bill Would Protect Religious Displays

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

ATLANTA — Sen. Richard Shelby and Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama have introduced bills in the Senate and House that would define public religious displays as constitutional rights not subject to review by federal courts.

"If a judge did not act appropriately then, of course, impeachment would be one of the options that the Congress could consider," Aderholt told Fox News.

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (search) was written in part by former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (search), who lost his legal battle to display the Ten Commandments (search ) in Alabama's Supreme Court Building.

Moore said the goal would be to restore the right of people to pray in school before lunch or of public officials to acknowledge God while on the job. But opponents say the legislation is unnecessary, and religion in the United States has been supported by government's refusal to interfere in it.

They also argue that the bill violates the separation of church and state (search) doctrine, but supporters say the legislation is needed because too many federal judges have taken to activist interpretations.

The bill would take the decisions of church-state separation out of the hands of federal judges, but it's unclear whether the law would pass constitutional muster in the eyes of the very courts it tries to regulate.

Attention Sen. Shelby, Rep. Aderholt, "Judge" Moore:

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.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-19 04:56am

It's a ridiculous law. If Congress and the House actually pass it (yeah ... right), SCOTUS will strike it down quicker than you can say "pandering to Southern religious sensibilities"

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2004-02-19 05:19am

Sorry about posting this in the wrong spot.

The house version is H.R. 3799 and the senate version is S. 2082.

Sponsors thus far:
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL)
Rep. Michael Pence (R-IN)
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA)
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO)

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-19 05:30am

ROFL. Notice the only Democrat is that Zell Miller traitor? Why doesn't he just become a Republican already?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-02-19 01:27pm

Sen. Richard Shelby and Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama have introduced bills in the Senate and House that would define public religious displays as constitutional rights not subject to review by federal courts.

So, not only are they trying to break the 1st Amendment, but they're also trying to rewrite the function of the judicial system? With a law that isn't a constitutional amendment?

This has got to be political posturing designed to draw out a confrontation with those "activist judges".

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-02-19 02:09pm

Vympel wrote:ROFL. Notice the only Democrat is that Zell Miller traitor? Why doesn't he just become a Republican already?

Because he's retiring this year.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2004-02-19 05:14pm

Or it's a re-election move: "I tried to keep our bronze statue of Chuck Heston as Moses safe, but the evil atheist water flouridators in DC wouldn't hear of it."

I draw some small comfort from the fact that none of PA's legislators are on the list... yet.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-19 06:34pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Sen. Richard Shelby and Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama have introduced bills in the Senate and House that would define public religious displays as constitutional rights not subject to review by federal courts.
So, not only are they trying to break the 1st Amendment, but they're also trying to rewrite the function of the judicial system? With a law that isn't a constitutional amendment?

This has got to be political posturing designed to draw out a confrontation with those "activist judges".

Not even that. It looks good for the voters back home, and that's it. These guys aren't total morons--well, some are, but not all--and they know that even if this law passed, it wouldn't mean squat. It's election year posturing and nothing else.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-02-19 09:03pm

Iceberg wrote:
Vympel wrote:ROFL. Notice the only Democrat is that Zell Miller traitor? Why doesn't he just become a Republican already?
Because he's retiring this year.

Damn. I was betting on "so they can claim bi-partisan support" myself.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-20 02:20pm

Vympel wrote:ROFL. Notice the only Democrat is that Zell Miller traitor? Why doesn't he just become a Republican already?

He's a Democrat from Georgia. He probably decided to support the bill while discussing the issue in the shower with his sister.

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2004-02-20 06:32pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Vympel wrote:ROFL. Notice the only Democrat is that Zell Miller traitor? Why doesn't he just become a Republican already?
He's a Democrat from Georgia. He probably decided to support the bill while discussing the issue in the shower with his sister.

*chuckles*

Hey, that's not nice. Not ALL the Georgians are hicks. Just most of them.

As to this law, I think Patrick Degan said it best when citing the First Amendment:

"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."

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2004-02-20 06:33pm

*mumbles something about lack of edit*

remove the word law in previous post. I really didn't mean to put that there. -_-;

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-20 06:38pm

Agreed. This is one of the most clear cut violations of the First Amendment I've ever seen; this would have been unconstitutional even a hundred and fifty years ago, when the Bill of Rights was still slumbering.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-02-20 06:39pm

Firstly: It already IS a right, as in Free Exercise. However it's NOT a right for the COURTS and GOVERNMENT to have these religious monuments.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-02-20 06:40pm

Addend: I think the wording may be meant to convince people that ALL religious expression is banned and that anyone can be told to remove religiously expressive artifacts. Misleading = spin doctoring.