Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Most Important Legislation In The Last Fifty Years:The Constitution Restoration Act Of 2004
EverVigilant.net ^ | 2-17-04 | Chuck Baldwin

Posted on 02/18/2004 4:06:44 PM PST by Federalist 78

Last week, a bill was introduced in both chambers of Congress to "limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism." The House version is H.R. 3799, and the Senate version is S. 2082. The bill is titled, "The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004." Initial sponsors of the bill include Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL), Rep. Michael Pence (IN), Sen. Richard Shelby (AL), Sen. Zell Miller (GA), Sen. Sam Brownback (KS), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC). Even though the introduction of this bill received little national media attention, it is the most important legislation in the last fifty years.
I was privileged to be in attendance at the press conference in Prattville, Alabama when former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, Rep. Aderholt, Sen. Shelby, Sen. Brownback, and Ambassador Alan Keyes formally announced the introduction of this bill to the media. Also in attendance were conservative luminaries such as Phyllis Schlafly and Howard Phillips. The bill was drafted by a star-studded legal team including Chief Justice Moore's lead counsel, Herb Titus.
The passage of H.R. 3799 and S. 2082 should be regarded as the most important item on the conservative agenda this year! It is no hyperbole to say that the passage of this bill is significantly more important than who wins the White House this November. Yes, I really mean that.
You see, what difference does it make who wins a presidential or congressional election if neither party will faithfully discharge their duty to the U.S. Constitution? We have seen Republican and Democratic presidents come and go. The same goes for congressmen and senators. Yet, government continues to get bigger and bigger, while freedom gets smaller and smaller. Neither has either major party done anything to reverse the trend toward socialism and globalism.
One of the major reasons for this unfortunate set of circumstances is an out-of-control federal judiciary. For the last fifty years, federal courts have run roughshod over the Constitution. For all practical purposes, America is now controlled by a tyrannical oligarchy of federal judges.
Thankfully, our Founding Fathers understood this potentiality and prescribed a way for Congress to deal with the matter. Under Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power and authority to regulate and except appellate jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court. That is exactly what H.R. 3799 and S. 2082 do.
Accordingly, under Sec. 102 of this bill, "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 acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
This means, that the federal judiciary would be prohibited from interfering with any expression of religious faith by any elected local, state, or federal official. In other words, federal judges could not prevent the Ten Commandments from being displayed in public buildings or Nativity Scenes from appearing on court house lawns or "under God" from being recited in the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers being spoken in public schools, etc. This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts in these matters.
Furthermore, Sec. 201 of this bill states, "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."
In other words, the Supreme Court would be prohibited from basing their opinions on the rule of foreign law. This is especially needful as Supreme Court justices such as Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have demonstrated a recent propensity to do just that.
As you can see, this bill is needed in the worst way! And the encouraging thing is, it really does have a better than average chance of passing. In fact, at the press conference in Prattville, Sen. Shelby predicted the bill would pass the U.S. Senate. Rep. Aderholt feels confident it will pass the House as well.
ACTION:
Please contact your congressman and senators (and the White House) and tell them that your support for their reelections is dependent upon their support for this bill! There is nothing more important in politics this year than passing this bill into law! Not even the vote for President is more important. The federal judiciary must be reigned in! It must be "bound down by the chains of the Constitution" (Jefferson). Passage of "The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" will begin this process. I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support this bill. I hope you will, too.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: chuckbaldwin; hr3799; s2082; turass
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last
Constitution Restoration Act "Cra" 2004

Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

1 posted on 02/18/2004 4:06:45 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
I'm a federalist at Law School this is great news please ping me if you get any more information.

thanks
2 posted on 02/18/2004 4:15:43 PM PST by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
A good start...
3 posted on 02/18/2004 4:25:52 PM PST by talleyman (It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
I hate to say it but won't it require a constitutional amendment to codify this otherwise sound piece of legislation? It seems to me that, ultimately, the Supreme Court could just strike this down on separation of powers arguments otherwise.
4 posted on 02/18/2004 4:27:54 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
Constitution - Article III - Congress can expand/contract ALL appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS.

Federalist #41 "It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it." FEDERAL COURTS have greatly expanded their jurisdiction beyond the confines of the Constitution. (see http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/grayone.htm )

http://www.peopleforlife.org/clarencethomas.html
The Constitution means what the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention and of the state ratifying conventions understood it to mean; not what we judges think it should mean.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_51.html
But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_78.html

...It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1

PUBLIUS.

1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.

 

http://www.jmu.edu/jmuweb/visitors/news/visitors3348.shtml
When delegates to the Constitutional Convention assembled at Philadelphia, the 36-year-old Madison took frequent and emphatic part in the debates. Madison made a major contribution to the ratification of the Constitution by writing, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the Federalist essays. In later years, when he was referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," Madison protested that the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain," but "the work of many heads and many hands."



The "Federalist" may fairly enough be regarded as the most authentic exposition of the text of the federal Constitution as understood by the Body [Constitutional Convention] which prepared & and the Authorities [state ratifying conventions] which accepted it. James Madison Letter to Thomas Jefferson, February 8, 1825 (Peterson, 1974, 2. page 383)



The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. - Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.



On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

Read anti-federalist 78-83 http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1389/antifeds/antifed.html

 

Read fed 78-83 http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

 

 

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm

Over the last 200 years, Congress has exercised this authority to except certain areas from the jurisdiction of the federal court system. In Turner vs. Bank of North America 4 Dall. (4 U.S.,8(1799)),the Supreme Court concluded that the federal courts derive their judicial power from Congress, not the Constitution.


In Cary vs. Curtis 3 How, (44 U.S.), 236 (1845), a statute made final the decision of the secretary of the Treasury in certain tax deductions. The statute was challenged as an unconstitutional deprivation of the judicial power of the courts. The Supreme Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the federal courts (inferior to the Supreme Court) was in the sole power of Congress.


In Sheldon vs. Sill 8 How (49 U.S. 441 (1850)), involved the validity of the assignee clause of the Judicial Act of 1789 restricting such action to establish federal court jurisdictions. The Supreme Court sustained the power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts.


In Ex Parte McCardle 6 Wall. (73 U.S.) 318 (1868), the Supreme Court accepted review on certiorari of a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the circuit court. Congress, fearful the Supreme Court would honor the writ, passed a law repealing the act which authorized the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.


In Lauf vs. E.G. Shinner & Co. 303 U.S. 323, 330 (1938), the Supreme Court upheld the power of Congress to define and limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States in the form restrictions on the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes under the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932.
In Lockerty v. Phillips 319 U.S. 182 (1943), Congress provided for a special court to appeal price control decisions under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The Supreme Court sustained this restriction.


In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

5 posted on 02/18/2004 4:29:55 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

I'm a federalist at Law School

May your tribe increase exponentially!

6 posted on 02/18/2004 4:32:12 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: talleyman

A good start...

And long overdue!

7 posted on 02/18/2004 4:33:34 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
This bill gets about three more votees than it has sponsors.

I love it, but it has as much chance of being law as Howard Dean does of giving the State of the Union Address in January of 2005.
8 posted on 02/18/2004 4:34:22 PM PST by Iron Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle
Why vote when judges can make and break law at will.
9 posted on 02/18/2004 4:35:35 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
'Bout time!!!
10 posted on 02/18/2004 4:49:39 PM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
Regarding separation of powers, I'm astonished that both the Vermont and Massachusetts supreme courts actually ordered their respective state legislatures to address the gay marriage issue in a manner demanded by the courts. What's astonishing is not that our out-of-control courts arrogated such power to themselves, but that both the Vermont and Massachusetts legislatures meekly complied. What both legislatures should have done — precisely on separation of powers grounds — was to tell their respective courts to shove it where the sun don't shine.
11 posted on 02/18/2004 5:08:53 PM PST by Wolfstar (A self-confident cowboy nation, or a Kerrified nation. Your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
UM, if judges feel free to ignore laws already on the books, how is yet another law going to make any difference?

When gavels are outlawed, only outlaws will have gavels! ;-)

12 posted on 02/18/2004 5:10:41 PM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Oh yeah!

I'm all over this deal.

(I tried to post this earlier but got rejected because it was frim Baldwin, what gives?)
13 posted on 02/18/2004 5:12:17 PM PST by WhiteGuy (Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
Is this the same Chuck Baldwin who claims that George W. Bush is setting up 2004 for a Hillary victory?

I'll be sure to take everything he says into account.
14 posted on 02/18/2004 5:13:44 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
so, you are the one.
15 posted on 02/18/2004 5:15:06 PM PST by satchmodog9 (it's coming and if you don't get off the tracks it will run you down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
What both legislatures should have done — precisely on separation of powers grounds — was to tell their respective courts to shove it where the sun don't shine.

There are a couple of alternatives that would at least serve to bring attention to the present Judicial tyranny.


They couldn't very well declare the law to be unconstitutional, as the legislature could eaasily say "Since you don't exist, your finding has no meaning and will be disregarded." One would think after the fiasco of Prohibition in the time it existed that the courts would know better than to attempt to "legislate" what will not be accepted.

Before anyone flames, be aware that i am neither a politician nor a lawyer.

16 posted on 02/18/2004 6:03:28 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; redrock; blackie; sauropod; Issaquahking; farmfriend; Carry_Okie; FBD
This is an interesting piece of legislation. And because you may not like the messenger is no reason to kill the message. It's worth looking at.
17 posted on 02/18/2004 6:18:55 PM PST by AuntB (End all entitlements EXCEPT the military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Hope at last
18 posted on 02/18/2004 6:21:55 PM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
This is an interesting piece of legislation. And because you may not like the messenger is no reason to kill the message. It's worth looking at.

I agree. Start with this and see what develops.

19 posted on 02/18/2004 6:25:39 PM PST by syriacus (Kerry's on the record saying he chose the swift boat assignment because he thought it would be safer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
"limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism."

As much as I applaud the effort I can't help but feel that such legislation is unconstitutional given the separation and checks and balances proscribed in The Constitution for the 3 branches of our government.

20 posted on 02/18/2004 6:26:26 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (The way that you wander is the way that you choose. The day that you tarry is the day that you lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson