Constitution Restoration Act of 2005

  • News
  • Thread starter cronxeh
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Act
In summary: Supreme Court, or any other court. This is something that should be encouraged, not discouraged. I'm looking forward to the day when we can all just get along and worship the one true God without the government getting in the way.
  • #1
cronxeh
Gold Member
1,007
11
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:

Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable
SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`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.'.

(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1260. Matters not reviewable.'.




-------------
Essentilly Congress wants to put a limit on what Supreme Courts can have power over, and this in essence opens the doors for public display of ten commandments, praying in schools, etc -- on local, state, and federal levels!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
cronxeh said:
Essentilly Congress wants to put a limit on what Supreme Courts can have power over, and this in essence opens the doors for public display of ten commandments, praying in schools, etc -- on local, state, and federal levels!

Lions, tigers, bears, oh my! Who cares? Congress has the Constitutional authority to establish jurisdiction of the courts. Few if any people genuinely care whether prayer in school or displays of the ten commandments are permitted. Get the matter out of the courts and the only people who'll give a damn are the village atheists. Quite frankly, I'm looking forward to this issue being relegated to the Internet forums where it belongs.

Rev Prez
 
Last edited:
  • #3
This is the exact reason why I care - so that nut jobs like you don't get their way.
 
  • #4
[edit:misread] Funny, funny bill: Unconstitutional at face value. It may as well say it in the body text: 'The purpose of this bill is unConstitutional...'
Congress has the Constitutional authority to establish jurisdiction of the courts.
Well, all courts except the USSC, and within the limits of the Constitution. The USSC's jurisdiction is enumerated in the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Rev Prez said:
...Few if any people genuinely care whether prayer in school or displays of the ten commandments are permitted.
Really? I’d like to see some “math" on this too.
Rev Prez said:
...Get the matter out of the courts and the only people who'll give a damn are the village atheists. Quite frankly, I'm looking forward to this issue being relegated to the Internet forums where it belongs.
From the thread on separation of church and state, per Wikipedia:
...These groups argue that religious groups ought to be involved in politics, to assure that laws are passed which reflect the Truth of religion. Some, such as the Christian Coalition, have become highly and vocally involved in promoting what they believe to be Christian values in government.

Other believers hold that the State ought to maintain an established church, a position described as antidisestablishmentarianism.

Islam holds that political life can only function properly within the context of Islamic law. To such believers, since God's law is Truth and beneficial to all people, any state law or action opposed to God's law would be harmful to the citizens, and displeasing to God. Many Muslims find the Western concept of separation of Church and State to be mere rebellion against God's law.
You seem to be of this "school of thought." (Do you have a “God Bless America” bumper sticker, or similar gear? I do informal surveys--just wondering…)
 
  • #6
cronxeh said:
`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.'.


Essentilly Congress wants to put a limit on what Supreme Courts can have power over, and this in essence opens the doors for public display of ten commandments, praying in schools, etc -- on local, state, and federal levels!

Take out "entity's" and I really don't have any problem with this bill. In that case, it only says that any individual is granted the right to believe that God is the authority from which our laws are derived without the fear of restitution from the Supreme Court. Adding in "entities," however, does seem to leave open the possibility of government agencies officially recognizing a theistic basis of law. Even then, I don't know if the Ten Commandments plaques would be allowable, as they still violate the establishment clause in that they claim a Christian basis of US law, which this bill says nothing about.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
SOS2008 said:
Really? I’d like to see some “math" on this too.
From the thread on separation of church and state, per Wikipedia:
You seem to be of this "school of thought." (Do you have a “God Bless America” bumper sticker, or similar gear? I do informal surveys--just wondering…)
you really need to stop attacking people who post here. Just because they don't agree with your line of thought does not give you the right to make personal attacks. I'm quite sure it's against forum rules. :mad:
I wouldn't normally say anything, but you seem to be making it a bit of a habit lately.
Where's Evo? :wink:
 
  • #8
cronxeh said:
This is the exact reason why I care - so that nut jobs like you don't get their way.

If you really feel threatened because some guy in an alligator T wants his kid to say the Pledge of Allegiance and pray in school, then you can afford to toughen up a bit.

Rev Prez
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
[edit:misread] Funny, funny bill: Unconstitutional at face value.

Why is that, russ? What exactly about it is unconstitutional? Also, read the language of the bill very carefully. "Appellatte Jurisdiction" should give you a hint.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Rev Prez
 
Last edited:
  • #10
kat said:
you really need to stop attacking people who post here. Just because they don't agree with your line of thought does not give you the right to make personal attacks. I'm quite sure it's against forum rules. :mad:
I wouldn't normally say anything, but you seem to be making it a bit of a habit lately.
Where's Evo? :wink:
Kat, you're right--I should have left that out. But are you sure you're not being a "pot that calls the kettle black?"
 
  • #11
SOS2008 said:
Really? I’d like to see some “math" on this too.

Sure.

From the thread on separation of church and state, per Wikipedia:
You seem to be of this "school of thought."

You'd think so, but then you'd be wrong.

Rev Prez
 
  • #12
kat said:
you really need to stop attacking people who post here.

Who is he attacking? He's asking for evidence to back up a claim I've made. Why worry about anything else said?

Rev Prez
 
  • #13
I've been very busy lately, but I can see we've gotten out of control here.

From the Guidelines:

"Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed. It is better to walk away from a possible confontation and come back with constructive arguments."
 
  • #14
Rev Prez said:
Sure.

Rev Prez

Pollin 1000-1500 people at a time is not real data.

According to real statistics (US Census: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf )

in 2001: 902 thousand Atheists, 991 thousand Agnostics, 49 thousand Humanists, 53 thousand Secular, and 27.4 million people said they have No Religion. In addition to that, 11.2 million refused to answer the question
 
  • #15
cronxeh said:
Pollin 1000-1500 people at a time is not real data.

I think we can discuss the validity of statistical methods elsewhere. This site sure has a forum for it.

According to real statistics (US Census: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf )

in 2001: 902 thousand Atheists, 991 thousand Agnostics, 49 thousand Humanists, 53 thousand Secular, and 27.4 million people said they have No Religion. In addition to that, 11.2 million refused to answer the question

Hmm...159.5 million Christians. What's your point again?

Rev Prez
 
  • #16
cronxeh said:
Pollin 1000-1500 people at a time is not real data.

According to real statistics (US Census: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf )

in 2001: 902 thousand Atheists, 991 thousand Agnostics, 49 thousand Humanists, 53 thousand Secular, and 27.4 million people said they have No Religion. In addition to that, 11.2 million refused to answer the question

That information is not from the census. As a census enumerator, I feel compelled to point out that the questionairre asks nothing about religious identification. In fact, according to your source, those numbers come from the American Religious Identification Survey, a telephone survey conducted that polled 50,281 people. More than 1500, but still not close to the census.
 
  • #17
A pretty big village of Atheists and those with No Religion, don't you think

Dug this up
"Changes in the educational levels of the general population in recent years
appear to account for much of the variance in biblical beliefs over time.
The current proportion of biblical literalists is 32%, only half of what it
was in 1963, when 65% of Americans said they believed in the absolute truth
of all words in the Bible and that it represented the actual word of God.
Belief in inerrancy is most likely to be found among people who did not
complete high school (58%), and least likely among college graduates (29%)." [One Nation Under God, (1993) Barry A. Kosmin & Seymour P. Lachman. pg. 268]

Thats the book they used in the link for 1993 & 2001 survey. I don't have the number of people polled in that book, but if its as random as you said they are, looseyourname, then this whole conversation is pointless.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
cronxeh said:
A pretty big village of Atheists and those with No Religion, don't you think

A way bigger village of Christians, don't you think?

Dug this up

Interesting but irrelevant and, absent the actual poll data, lacking on points we can evaluate here.

Rev Prez
 
  • #19
The actual poll data was taken from that book and its in the link on census website - the one you drew 150 Mil+ from
 
  • #20
cronxeh said:
The actual poll data was taken from that book and its in the link on census website - the one you drew 150 Mil+ from

Um, no it's not.

Rev Prez
 
  • #21
cronxeh said:
...The current proportion of biblical literalists is 32%, only half of what it was in 1963, when 65% of Americans said they believed in the absolute truth of all words in the Bible and that it represented the actual word of God. Belief in inerrancy is most likely to be found among people who did not complete high school (58%), and least likely among college graduates (29%)." [One Nation Under God, (1993) Barry A. Kosmin & Seymour P. Lachman. pg. 268].
I posted very similar information, some verbatim to this some time ago, but from a different source. Aside from sourcing and providing source information, which was done here, isn't it possible that some information is cross-referenced by various sources?
 
  • #22
One would assume that the Census for which we all pay would ask intelligent questions for once.. but no
 
  • #23
cronxeh said:
One would assume that the Census for which we all pay would ask intelligent questions for once.. but no

It would be nice if we had some more meat to the quote you provided. You have read Kosmin, right?

Rev Prez
 
  • #24
No, sorry. Who is Kosmin?
 
  • #25
cronxeh said:
No, sorry. Who is Kosmin?

Uh, he would be the author of "One Nation Under God" along with Lachman. You know, the book you quoted and (I assumed) you had read. Where did you get the quote anyway?

Rev Prez
 
  • #26
loseyourname said:
Take out "entity's" and I really don't have any problem with this bill.
Really? It says that the USSC cannot review a set of cases that may slide in its direction. How would that even work? A case goes through the normal judicial channels, through various appeals courts, and then an appeal is filed with the USSC. The USSC would then say... 'sorry, we can't review this case - Congress says we're not allowed...'? I don't think so.
 
  • #27
Rev Prez said:
Uh, he would be the author of "One Nation Under God" along with Lachman. You know, the book you quoted and (I assumed) you had read. Where did you get the quote anyway?

Rev Prez


No sorry I haven't had the chance to read the book - I found the author and then dug through that book to see how many people they used in their polls

The Census data on table 67 that I posted link to before basically says they got their data from that book for 1993 and 2001 years. I found that link at least half explanatory to the issue at hand, but still I have no idea what's going on with the Census data - they seemed to have randomly called people for the 90's data and then used the book as a source for 2001? :rolleyes:
 
  • #28
russ_watters said:
Really? It says that the USSC cannot review a set of cases that may slide in its direction. How would that even work? A case goes through the normal judicial channels, through various appeals courts, and then an appeal is filed with the USSC. The USSC would then say... 'sorry, we can't review this case - Congress says we're not allowed...'? I don't think so.

Perhaps I didn't read closely enough. I'll have to look over the entire thing in more detail. Initially, without the word "entity" thrown in, it just seemed to me that this doesn't allow the Supreme Court to rebuke an individual's personal belief. Really, no court should be able to. It shouldn't even be a matter that can be taken to a court. Obviously you agree with me on that, however. I probably just misread something. I'll go back and look at it again. If what you say is true, though, that a case ruling a person's belief illegal or unconstitutional can go through regular appeals but not be reviewed by the Supreme Court, I wouldn't worry. No bill like that will ever pass. It seems a good reason to campaign against whoever wrote it, but I tend not to get too worked up over bills that will never become law. Oftentimes congressmen are just trying to make some stupid point.
 

Related to Constitution Restoration Act of 2005

1. What is the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005?

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 was a proposed bill in the United States Congress that aimed to limit the power of federal courts to enforce the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in cases involving religious symbols and practices.

2. Who proposed the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005?

The bill was introduced by Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama and Representative Robert Aderholt of Alabama in response to a controversial Supreme Court ruling regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings.

3. What was the purpose of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005?

The main purpose of the bill was to prevent federal courts from ruling on cases involving religious symbols and practices, and instead leave those decisions to state and local governments.

4. Was the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 passed into law?

No, the bill did not pass into law. It was never brought to a vote in Congress and ultimately died in committee.

5. What was the controversy surrounding the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005?

The bill faced criticism from those who argued that it would undermine the separation of church and state and could potentially lead to discrimination against religious minorities. Others argued that it was an attempt to limit the power of the federal courts and undermine the checks and balances system of the government.

Similar threads

Replies
61
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
90
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top