Furthermore, I oppose HR 3799 on the grounds that it violates our first amendment. It does so in a very subtle manner that would nonetheless empower the men behind the well-meaning but misguided religious right in America to pursue their Christian theocratic agenda. It is no accident that men such as Pat Robertson, Roy Moore, and Jerry Falwell are using their influence to push legislation with this innocuous sounding but dangerous phrase in section 1260:
`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.'.The phrase "acknowledgement of God" would apply to legislation, official conduct, and court rulings.
What this means is that America would become vulnerable to those who would establish government power to impose religion on its citizens.
While this legislation does not specifically indicate a preference for a particular religious doctrine, it would break down strict limits on our government's authority to establish religion as the full basis (not just the inspiration for) our laws.
In any case, what it advertises to the unsuspecting American citizen is better pursued by enforcing our existing law. Adding new laws to support laws that aren't being enforced will do little to help.
I find the clause regarding English common law somewhat confusing, as well. In any case, the Constitution is the highest law in the land, and if we find that judges and legislators are invoking foreign powers, then we may need to consider an amendment to the Constitution itself. I believe this is your primary concern. There again, I do not know that another amendment would make the others more clear in this respect.
When we need the restraint that most unsuspecting citizens believe that HR 3799 places on our government, it will already be too late. As our law and practice stand today, CFR notwithstanding, I believe our best interests have usually been served with respect to the first amendment. A law like 3799 would permit a Jerry Falwell to start advocating laws that put far too much power in the hands of the state to advocate specific religious faiths. What these men want is more power for government. The Constitution, including its first amendment, is all about limiting such power.
Like disarming Americans to keep them safe, putting religion in government is a simplistic solution to a problem that can't be solved that way.
IMO > By following the Constitution the government will NOT be allowed to ajudicate which religion the government must follow thereby we will be following the Constitution not a ruling written after the Constitution was written.
I do believe this will keep Chrisianity as the religion of America, not an Islamic vision.
I find the clause regarding English common law somewhat confusing, as well. In any case, the Constitution is the highest law in the land, and if we find that judges and legislators are invoking foreign powers, then we may need to consider an amendment to the Constitution itself. I believe this is your primary concern. There again, I do not know that another amendment would make the others more clear in this respect.
If any legislator writes a Bill to add an amendment to the Constitution there will be at least 100 tag Bills and we won't have a Constitution when they are done.
The Supreme Court has already acknowledged that "international laws' must be taken into consideration when they make decisions for America.