Putting this in Great Debates because I suspect it’ll end up here soon enough…
I got an email from a friend of mine today; she had received a FOAF email about a new bill introduced in Congress last month that would, to put it bluntly, establish “Biblical rule” as the supreme law of the United States. Backed by high-profile and deep-pocketed conservatives like Pat Robertson and Roy Moore, the “Constitution Restoration Act of 2004” would limit the jurisdiction of federal court in cases involving God – e.g., when there’s a conflict between religion and federal law, religion wins.
Well, I was prepared to dismiss this as a crank, probably one of those oft-debunked snopes rumors, but a Google search reveals otherwise. The text of the bill (HR 3799) is here, and endorsers include former Alabama Judge Roy Moore, Alabama Congressman Robert Aderholt, Indiana Congressman Michael Pence, and South Carolina Congressman Lindsey Graham.
Now, I’m not prepared to go off the deep end yet, but the distinct lack of hoax-debunking information does have my brow furrowed. So I toss the matter to the big brains of the SDMB to dig through the legal, ethical, and judicial matters of this – is this the latest gambit from the fundamentalist Christian right, or a doomed-to-be-struck-down symbolic gesture that’s not worth worrying over?
I would not worry to much, I doubt the bill will even make it out of commity. Its nice that the authors think that adding Dumbass Moore is somehow relavent though.
Considering the language in the Constitution
It seems clear that the proposed bill violates the Constitutional Judicial power. In the first para it states
The Constitution states the Supreme Court has jurisdiction the proposed bill attempts to limit that jurisdiction.
Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land it supercedes bills passed by congress. In order to accomplish their goal the knuckleheads would have to pass a constitutional amendment.
There was a thread on this a month or two ago; this basically boils down to a rehash of the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, which Congress passed to limit SCOTUS’ influence on Establishment Clause issues, and which they promptly struck down.
Don’t worry about it… even if it passes, it’s toothless.
See, Arcite, I read that as saying Congress can determine which cases must have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, rather than in a lower one. Not as saying Congress can decide how the Supreme Court can rule on a case or being able to regulate which cases can legally go before the Supreme Court.
Of course this is unconstitutional, but lets say that the SCOTUS rules against a law in South Carolina and the state goverment refuses to accept the ruling citing the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act as negating the SCOTUS’s jurisdiction. Then President Kerry orders in the National Guard. The commander of the South Carolina National Guard refuses the order from a “Massachusetts Liberal”. Sounds like Civil War II™ to me.
Of course maybe this time we let them secede. It’d be a shame about the bourbon however.
I sort of get the feeling you are just goofing around. Speackin as an expatriated Southerner I doubt it would be called Civil War II down in Dixie. We would just consider it an end to the temporary cease fire.
But seriously, If a National Guard Unit was ordered to do something and it’s Commander rufused, the president would just relieve him and appoint someone else. Once federalized by executive order the National Guard is no longer under State control, and they become integrated into the regular US Army Chain of Command.
Also it should be noted that Govenor Wallace tried to refuse a President, on an issue that was much more concern to my fellow Southerners. He actually stood in the door of the admissions Building at the University of Alabama, and screamed “Segregation Today, Segregation tommorow, Segregation forever” and tried to physically prevent African American students from entering ( to the everlasting shame of many Southerners like myself).
He backed down pretty damn quickly though when the 82nd Airborne said pretty please. No civil war.
Despite the religious frenzy that Mr. Gibson and his movie are generating, I doubt (hope?) the issue of religion will tempt the South to fulfill an old promise to Rise Again, if integration didn’t do it, Moore and his band of travelling idiots will not be able to.
PS The only time I was more ashamed of being from Alabama, than I was when Wallace made his empty promise about segregation, was when I watched all the fuc…all the morons defending Roy Moore. I just hope people realize that for every gap toothed dipstick seen on TV in front of the Alabama Supreme Court spouting nonsense in support of Roy Moore, there are thousands of decent well meaning respectable Southerners that were not shown on TV and who did not support Moore.
The actual text of the bill in question is not quite as sweeping as that.
Nothing there about the Bible that I can find. It strikes me more like a reaction to the Ten Commandments case, which is likely why former judge Moore is involved with it.
Doesn’t mean it isn’t a stupid bill, or that it has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting anywhere at all, but it does mean that you might want to consider if you are not over-reacting to e-mail more than slightly.
Cranks on both sides of the aisle tend to introduce and/or obsess on these kinds of bills. Everyone else tends to disregard them.
Did your e-mail have the name “Chicken Little” on it?
[QUOTE=askeptic]
I sort of get the feeling you are just goofing around. Speackin as an expatriated Southerner I doubt it would be called Civil War II down in Dixie. We would just consider it an end to the temporary cease fire. [\QUOTE]Or maybe the War of Northern Aggression Part II
I always wondered if it was federal troops or national guard that Johnson sent in. Hell, if the 82nd Airborne asked they could probably get me to pre-sugar my ice tea.
