To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts - The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

Library of Congress ^

[Happy2BMe]

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.

[Happy2BMe]

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

---

A BILL

To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2004'.

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`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.'.

(2) 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.'.

(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:

`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review

`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district court shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'.

(2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'.

(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.

TITLE II--INTERPRETATION

SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

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.

TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.

Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.

SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.

To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--

(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.

[Happy2BMe]

To view the source document, go HERE and type in HR 3799 in the "BILL NUMBER" block, then "SEARCH."

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[Lancer_N3502A]

How bout the 2nd Amendment? The right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms.

[Happy2BMe]

I find it a pitiful state of affairs that we have sunk so low that we have to pass laws that limit judges from ruling by international law instead of our own.

How long will it be before such base issues as quoting "In God We Trust" or legislating homosexual marriage into law will be decided using European or even United Nations statutes?

[radicalamericannationalist]

You should read Jeremy Rabkin's work on the use of international law in US decisions. He rips the idea apart.

[B4Ranch]

Chief Justice Roy Moore will appear before congress in hearings on Monday, September 13, in Washington DC to speak for legislation he is supporting. This legislation is called the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004".

Judge Moore needs your support. Please write, call, fax, or email your congressman in support of this important legislation. The Chief also asks for prayers as he goes before Congress on Monday.

[B4Ranch]

THE COMING WORLD RELIGION and it is not Islam!

[Susannah]

HR 3799
Sponsor: Rep Aderholt, Robert B.

Cosponsors:
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 2/24/2004
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 5/5/2004
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 6/2/2004
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 4/27/2004
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 7/13/2004
Rep Collins, Mac [GA-8] - 5/18/2004
Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. [AL-5] - 2/24/2004
Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 3/10/2004
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-10] - 3/18/2004
Rep DeMint, Jim [SC-4] - 4/1/2004
Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2] - 2/24/2004
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 7/13/2004
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 4/27/2004
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 6/18/2004
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 4/27/2004
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 6/25/2004
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 2/24/2004
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 4/27/2004
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 4/27/2004
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 3/10/2004
Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 7/19/2004
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 3/18/2004
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 2/11/2004
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 7/15/2004
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 2/24/2004
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 2/24/2004
Rep Ryun, Jim [KS-2] - 3/11/2004
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 3/25/2004
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 5/18/2004
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 6/15/2004
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 5/5/2004
Rep Vitter, David [LA-1] - 6/15/2004
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/10/2004
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 9/9/2004

Related Bill in Senate (S 2323)
Sponsor: Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] (introduced 2/12/2004)

Cosponsors:
Sen Allard, A. Wayne [CO] - 2/12/2004
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - 2/12/2004
Sen Graham, Lindsey O. [SC] - 2/12/2004
Sen Inhofe, Jim [OK] - 2/12/2004
Sen Miller, Zell [GA] - 2/12/2004

[B4Ranch]

1/10th of our glorious Representatives and 1/20th of our power hungry Senators have chosen to Co-sponser the Bill.

Is it time to shoot the rest of them?

[Happy2BMe]

That was an eye-opener!

Much food for thought there.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[ApesForEvolution]

Al'gaya'gore, the lunatic, angling for Chief Supreme Douchebag of The World...

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!

[B4Ranch]

If this Bill fails to pass will we need the 2nd Amendment?

the second amendment is all about offering the Constitution a reset button.

[SierraWasp]

I think this is great and I'm glad to see Wally Herger of northern CA (who's district is about to be swallowed into an unconstitutional "Sierra-Nevada CONservancy," by the pen of "Republican" Governor Schwarzenegger) is a sponsor!!!

Don'tcha suppose the courts will rule this law "UNconstitutional," should it be passed?

[B4Ranch]

The Courts will enforce it!

[SierraWasp]

How do you know that? It certainly wouldn't be in their interest in this day and age of government by judicial whim!!!

[hedgetrimmer]

Bump

[supercat]

I disagree with this notion. It will have no effect on bad judges, but cripple good ones. What's needed is to get good judges.