It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


GOD above the US Supreme Court ?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:23 PM
It seems Washington is pushing a law through Congress that would "acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty (and) government" in the United States. What's more, it would forbid all legal challenges to government officials who use the power of the state to enforce their own view of "God's sovereign authority." Any judge who dared even hear such a challenge could be removed from office.

The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004"VIEW is no joke; it was introduced by some of the Bush Regime's most powerful Congressional bootlickers. If enacted, would it transform the American republic into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher power" -- as interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat or president -- can override the rule of law.

Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`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 element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

Considering the judiciary is "an element" of the federal, state and local governments, would this wording, if it becomes law, allow any judge to institute biblical punishments without being subject to review by the Supreme Court or the federal court system?

The proposed bill punishes sitting judges by requiring impeachment and removal, if they rely on decisions from another state or jurisdiction, such as another state's constitution, law, administrative rule or judicial decision. The proposed Section 201, "Interpretation of the Constitution" reads:

"In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than the constitutional law and English common law."

The "international" part ensures that, by force of law, US judges could not be guided by the Geneva Conventions or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even if the US is a signatory.

Antonin Scalia has explained, the Bible teaches and Christians believe "... that government ...derives its moral authority from God. Government is the `minister of God' with powers to `revenge,' to `execute wrath,'including even wrath by the sword..."

Some people . think it is a good idea and others think it isn't

What are your opinions on this subject?

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:27 PM
If this goes through....

Well, it's kind of funny. I know here in Canada, a party that has similar beliefs gets about 1000 votes per election and generally aren't taken seriously because that belief just seems ludicrous to most people. Just goes to illustrate the differences between the two countries, though - And people say we're America jr?

Just my opinion, anyway.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:29 PM
This would legally turn America into a theocracy.

The fundamentalists will love this.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:32 PM
My impression, given the supposed (although not constitutionally based) seperation of church and state would restrict the law in the following way.

Although the law could establish recognition of God (which, in and of itself is a very generic term) as the Supreme endower of law and such and so on, and would thus align with the Constitution (remember 'endowed by their Creator'?), it would not allow for such an admission to excuse the retreat to Biblical punishment and law. Why? Well, the admission of a God is not the endorsement of a specific belief system or religion. To allow the doling out of biblical punishment, and then point to the law would be a violation of church and state seperation because allowing the inclusion of a specific dogma's writ as law would, by default, be an endorsement of it.

You can admit, and legislate an admission, of a supreme being and not violate law. It's the endorsement of a particular sect, or exclusion through legislation thereof, that violates the law.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:33 PM
I think that whoever introduced this should be shot. Dead on spot, in the middle of Congress.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:34 PM
if this is true then the USA is a fu*king hypocripte
because it then would be like

saudi/iran and others that are controled by religous laws

and not a real democricy

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:38 PM
I'm not sure that I understand this yet.

However, if I understand how you have summarized it....I need to be scared.

I really hope that you are over reacting.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:46 PM

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
I think that whoever introduced this should be shot. Dead on spot, in the middle of Congress.

Planning in process....Just kidding...not


posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:56 PM
First off, Wow.

My interpretation of what Section 1260 means is that any aspect of government may may decisions or take action against a person in the name of God. What this seems to mean is that even if a law is not on the books or a law isn't applied to certain crimes, that if a government agent interprets God's will that a law should be extended or certain punishments be extended in the name of God that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.

Another application is getting the 10 commandments in the school systems or other religious views in the schools or government offices. The Supreme Court will then have no jurisdiction to tell those schools or government offices to take away the religious pieces.

I find it funny though that this bill is claiming to promote federalism when it wishes to take away certain checks and balances of the federal system itself.

Also, look closely at English common law. The US is a corporation mandated under English common law and the "laws" that we believe are being created are actually policies of this corporation. The citizens of the government are actually considered constituents of the corporation, a good word to use would be a subsidiary owned by the corporation.

But look on the bright side of this bill, states are receiving their powers back and aren't binded by decision from the Supreme Court that are made without using God.

I'd like this bill a lot better though if it didn't apply to decision of the Federal Government. Basically it is taking away checks and balances within the Federal Government so that the Legislative and Executive branches are consolidating their power. Very scary indeed.

If this law is passed, it is a way to forgo overturning Roe v. Wade, and just pass a law that makes it so federal/state gov. can decide what God's will is and won't be subject to the Supreme Court if they do.

So, what the hell will the point of the Supreme Court be if this bill is passed?

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:57 PM

Don't let black-robed tyrants turn America into an atheist state! Sign this petition in support of the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" -- H.R. 3799 and S. 2082 now before Congress. Then work with sponsor Alan Keyes to educate fellow citizens and move them to action that will defend the integrity of the U.S. Constitution and thus protect our right of religious expression!

Judge Roy Moore Introduces Constitution Restoration Act 2004 Q. What is the purpose of this bill? A. The purpose of the CRA is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States. The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the organic law of our Country by United States Code Annotated. The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government. The acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal courts. The CRA also protects and preserves the Constitution of the United States by restricting federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign jurisdictions and international law as the supreme law of our land.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story. Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (Introduced in House) HR 3799 IH 108th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 3799 To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 11, 2004 Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself and Mr. PENCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Constitutional "Reform" a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing Want to live in a neo-Christian theocracy? If your elected officials have their say, you may just get your wish. By Matt HutaffOct 25, 2004 I have no problem with faith. In fact, I find it inspiring when people can dedicate their life so completely to a belief or an intangible. After all, when such dedication reaps a dividend of compassion, tolerance and understanding, we all win. However, as we've seen of late, faith seems to be more of a crutch for hatred, misunderstanding and a fundamental lack of awareness of the origins of said beliefs. But you know what? As much as it pains me to admit, people are entitled to live in the dark, and there isn't a law on the books that says someone can't be a miserable hypocrite. Some people just don't want their eyes opened, and as long as their misguided beliefs don't intrude with mine, I have no quarrel with them.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:59 PM

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
I think that whoever introduced this should be shot. Dead on spot, in the middle of Congress.

Some sponsors of the bill were Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:00 PM
great links, Skeptic

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Psychoses

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
I think that whoever introduced this should be shot. Dead on spot, in the middle of Congress.

Some sponsors of the bill were Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

Should all be shot dead, in the back of the head, with there own gun, with a bible in there hands. YEAH!!

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Psychoses
Some sponsors of the bill were Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

All of them basically whipping their ass with the constitution.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:18 PM
Im amused.

People what we have here is the nwo in full effect. Im not gonna explain here, you guys need to do some studying and if u have then be prepared not scared (scared is not going to help, embrace your fear dont back away from it, then control it and twist it to your benifit).

The illumnati is no joke, But then God isnt ethier.

This so called passing of law, whos law theirs or our gods.

Another thing to think about our God is not wrathful or vengeful like the bible would have you belive, simply becasue the bible we read is or has been twisted so that so called bible God is not what you think he is.

Our God is all powerful and loving and takes no nonsense but vengeful no far from it. He would be more on the terms of avengeful; like I said there is alot to learn and Im learning everyday.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:20 PM
I hope it doesnt pass even most Republicans have more sense than that.

This is EXACTLY the kind of problems I was talking about in this thread.

No ONE party should have as much power as the Republicans do right now. I would not trust the LIBERTARIANS with all three branches

[edit on 7-11-2004 by Amuk]

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:22 PM
Good, now we can stone those who don't go to church on Sundays, send the gays into the burning lake of sulfur, and make all the non believers second-class citizens.

It's a dark day in America my friends.

Wait, our FIRST AMMENDMENT says we can have freedom of religion, yet our law is governed by someone else's God, lets stop right there. The crusades happened in the middle ages, and look where it got them.

Great, a jihad if I ever saw one. More blood, more hate, and more disgust in the name of God. Our country is falling to pieces. Our country. When I say "our" there is no clasue, there is no *except... or *only if... or *excluding... There is one. One people, one country, one nation.

HEY AMERICA- JESUS ISNT MY SAVIOR! Let me just put it out there now, hopefully the Patriot Act has gained more steam now and they can lock me up tomorrow. Storm my house, raid my writings, and lock me up. I'm a danger to an evangelist society. This Church/State hubbub is filling the board, and making me quaver with frustration. And with this law, let's just get rid of any foreign relations we have, they obviously aren't being used here at home in deciding judicial matters.

Who knows,maybe I'm ignorant. But then again, maybe I'm just pissed.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:32 PM
I noticed both bills haven't even been voted on in Committee yet. If there was ever a time to contact your Congressman - now is it.

The Senate has been sent to the Judiciary Committee - I haven't tracked down the House bill yet. Anyone?

Members of the senate committee

Charles E. Grassley-IOWA
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.-DELAWARE
Herbert Kohl-WISCONSIN
Mike DeWine-OHIO
Dianne Feinstein-CALIFORNIA
Jeff Sessions-ALABAMA
Russell D. Feingold-WISCONSIN
Lindsey Graham -SOUTH CAROLINA
Charles E. Schumer-NEW YORK
Larry Craig -IDAHO
Richard J. Durbin-ILLINOIS
Saxby Chambliss-GEORGIA
John Cornyn-TEXAS

I'm also curious why the ACLU isn't all over this - I check their website all the time and no mention of it.


[edit on 11/7/04 by Bleys]

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:04 AM
Thank's for the response everyone. I can see this topic has raised a few eyebrows amongst you, so I did a bit more research to try and find some more info on the subject.

Their isn't a lot that's available but I did come across this little gem. Reading it all will highlight just how much religion there is on the senate floor.

Senate Floor Statement by U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla)

Today, I join Senator Shelby and others with the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain ways.......

.......I highly recommend a great book entitled Original Intent by David Barton.

It really gets into how the actual Members of Congress, who drafted the First Amendment, expected basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society, not separate from it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment the Senator from Georgia, Senator Miller, for his statement and for his outrage over some of the decline in morality which was evidenced by not only by Super Bowl halftime but also by the Supreme Court decision just made in the State of Massachusetts where basically four individuals tried to legalize same-sex marriage. It was not a vote of the people.

Link To Senate Speech

I can't believe he referred to the "Nipplegate" wardrobe malfunction. One would think it might be strange that it happend just 8 days before they table this document. Planned malfunction?

"It was not a vote of the people." Now that was a pretty amazing prediction by The Senator from Oklahoma, given that the gay issue is what decided the election.

I think the President is going to use his election "mandate" to push this bill through. The other day I read that GWB said something like,

"I have gained capital in the last election and I aim to spend it."

Considering all the spin the medias been giving the gay marriage thing lately, they probably wouldn't get too much opposition trying to get it passed through in the near future, especially since GWB now has the majority. I'll also bet you won't hear a thing about it in the mainstream media.

new topics


log in