Skip to comments.Constitution Restoration Act Of 2004:Hearing... Subcommittee On Courts...Committee On The Judiciary
Posted on 11/26/2004 2:32:31 PM PST by Ed Current
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROY S. MOORE, FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW, INC.
Mr. MOORE. Okay. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Berman, I want you to know I have the greatest respect for the gentlemen which have come before me here. But entertaining as I do sentiments in direct opposition, I hope I may be understood not to be critical of them and their opinions. But this is a momentous moment to our country. And, quite frankly, I'm confused. I agree with Mr. Gerhardt that the purpose of this bill is very clear. One can't read the simple lines of this thing without understanding that this is about the right of State and Federal officials to acknowledge God.
And I'm confused. I got up here this afternoon and I walked around Washington. I passed by the Washington Monument standing 555 feet, 5 and 125/1000 inches above this city, at the top of which is the Latin phrase, Laus Deo, ''Praise Be To God.'' It certainly wasn't an offense to our Founding Fathers. This Nation was founded upon a belief in God, not upon a belief in Buddha, not upon Hinduism. Nothing in western theology or western jurisprudence indicates otherwise. The acknowledgment of God was not prohibited by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Is not then, is not now.
I walked by Oscar Straus memorial, saw a carved thing of the Ten Commandments. At least that's what Oscar Straus said it was. There was a woman leaning on it in prayer. Adolph Weinman designed that. It is an exact duplicate of what hangs over the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court's head; and yet they say, if you go to the Supreme Court, that it's the Bill of Rights. But in 1975, the United States Supreme Court pamphlet said it was the Ten Commandments. You see, we are erasing our history right under your noses in this Congress, right under your watchful eye.
We are losing our right to acknowledge God as the sovereign source. And it is very important. Our liberty of public worship is not a concession nor a privilege, but an inherent right. Those words are written on that monument. And that truth was recognized that God gives us the right to be a pluralistic society to believe what we want. That right was recognized quite clearly in 1931 by both the minority and the majority of the United States Supreme Court. In the case of the U.S. versus Macintosh, it was written by Justice Sutherland for the majority: We are Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.
The minority, written by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said: One cannot speak of religious liberty, with proper appreciation of its essential and historic significance, without assuming the existence of a belief in supreme allegiance to the will of God. Indeed, the acknowledgment of God lies at the very basis of the first amendment.
There was another Judiciary Committee in 1853, both of the House and the Senate which undertook objections by certain people that wanted to eliminate chaplaincy. I have the legislative histories here. Both the United States Senate and House of Representatives recognized that acknowledgment of God was essential. In the Senate, they said they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the Nation.
Even in their public character as legislators, they did not intend to send our armies and navies forth to do battle for their country without a national recognition of that God upon whom success or future depends. They did not intend to spread over all the public and over the whole action of the Nation, the dead and resulting spectacle of atheistical apathy. And that's exactly what's being spread over this country today.
The acknowledgment of God is part of our organic law. They say this is a court stripping bill. I'm not trying and the proponents of this bill are not trying to deny the Supreme Court the right to say what the law is, when they improperly interpret the law. We are not trying to interfere with the independence of the judiciary. Indeed, they must be independent. I was a Supreme Court Chief Justice. I believe in independence. I'm not trying to deny judicial review. Judicial review is a valid part of the Constitution. But that's not judicial tyranny.
You see, the rule of law requires that we go by the written text of the Constitution. And I defy anybody in this room, any professor, any lawyer to stand up and tell me what religion means under the first amendment of the United States Constitution. Unless they go by what the Supreme Court said in 1892, in 1890, and 1878. Religion was the duties which we owe to the creator and the manner of discharging it. James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance remarks. And James Madison ought to know what the first amendment was about. He promoted it and offered it into Congress. He said in his Memorial that, because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion or the duty which we owe to the Creator and manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force and violence.
The rule of law is very simple. We go by written definition. Recently, I believe last week or not long ago you had a football game here between the Washington Redskins and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. And I understand a lot of people in Washington are big Washington Redskins fans. What would have happened if Tampa Bay had gotten down to the five yard line, and the time ran out and they were behind in score, but the referee stood up and said: Touchdown; Tampa Bay, they win? They were on the five yard line. You would run to the referee and say, what do you mean, referee? That's not a touchdown. What would you say if the referee said: Well, ma'am, or sir, we don't know how to define touchdown. But, you know, we really thought they tried to play a hard game and we felt sorry for them and they should have won.
That's exactly what the United States Supreme Court and Federal district court does in first amendment cases. They do not go by the law. And there is a reason for that. They have no law. The law is Congress, part of the Federal Government, shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, being the duties we owe to the Creator and the manner of discharging it, or prohibiting the free exercise of the duties we owe to the Creator and the manner of discharging it. It was to keep Federal Government out of the affairs of the State.
Mr. MOORE. Ma'am, first let me clarify something. The premise upon which your questions are asked is that we are trying to overturn any decision of the Supreme Court or Federal district court. That's not the purpose of this bill. Yes, constitutional amendment is a way you can overturn a decision. And article III is not trying to overturn a decision.
But as far as the use of article III in the courts, to stop the Supreme Court, it has been used many times. And one particular time was in the McCardle case in 1868. There was an 1867 statute that authorized the Supreme Court to hear appeals from denials of writ of habeas corpus. A Mississippi writer had spoken out against the Reconstruction efforts of the Congress, and Congress moved to repeal that statute.
This is what Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase said about article III restrictions: We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the Legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution, and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is given by express words. What then is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdiction, the Court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is the power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining of the Court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.
Now, what we are trying to clarify in this constitutional restoration act is the right of Justices on the Supreme Court to say, you cannot, as a State, acknowledge God. Every State does. All three branches of the Federal court do. The first amendment does not give them that right. That is the law. And the reason it is so important to interpret the words of the statutes to define the words is you can't interpret the law unless you define the words.
It is a simple thing. If-I could use many examples, but if you walked down by a creek, and you picked up a stick, and you were arrested for fishing without a license, and you went before a judge and he said, I am going to have to fine you and put you in jail, and you said, why, he said, you are fishing without a license, he said. You said, Judge, I wasn't fishing without a license. I didn't have a line on the stick. I didn't have a weight, a hook; didn't have any bait, and I wasn't in the water. If the judge said, but, Mr. Jones, sir, or, Mrs. Jones, you could kill a fish with that stick, couldn't you? I am going to have to put you in jail. Would he be interpreting law? No, he would be making law. And that's exactly what the Supreme Court does when it forbids the acknowledgment of God.
The first amendment's only purpose was to allow that freedom to worship God, and it is from that worship of God that we get freedom of conscience to do and believe. That's why there is no class of citizen called atheist or Christians or Buddhists. They are all free to believe, because Government can't interfere with their right to believe and worship. That's the purpose of the first amendment. And the purpose of the first amendment was to prohibit the Federal Government, and especially the lawmaking branch, from interfering with that right. They never anticipated that the Supreme Court would be making law. And that's exactly what happened.
And how did they make law? Not by the first amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion. They do it by test, tests that have no relevance to law. Law is supposed to be a prescribed rule by the supreme authority of the State commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong. You are supposed to know what the law is. When you go out on the highway and you proceed down the highway, and it is marked 60 miles an hour, you know how fast you can go. If that law just says, don't go fast, and you have to come before a judge to find out whether you violated that law or not, then you are subject to tyranny. And that's exactly what the first amendment stands for.
The first amendment doesn't prohibit the acknowledgment of God. The very definitions under it acknowledge God. And yet they say you cannot acknowledge God. That was done in this case. I have my opinion right here. Federal courts do not have that authority. Nor does the Supreme Court. And it is the right of Congress who recognizes acknowledgment of God to be the right of every person. It doesn't discriminate against anybody.
SUPPLEMENTAL PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROY S. MOORE
The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (H.R. 3799) (CRA) exempts from federal courts cases brought over a public official's or element's public ''acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.'' During the course of my testimony before this honorable subcommittee, I did not have an opportunity to answer a question asked by a subcommittee member who wanted to know whether ''God'' was defined in the CRA, or, as the subcommittee member put it, ''Which God is this legislation referring to?''
The answer is so obvious it forces one to wonder about the real purpose for asking. There can be no doubt as to which God the legislation must be referring to when it discusses acknowledgments of God as ''the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government'' because a basic knowledge of America's history and of our Founders' innumerable acknowledgments of the same God reveals that the God America always acknowledges is the God of the Holy Scriptures.
The brave pioneers who in 1620 landed at Plymouth Rock bound themselves to a governing compact before departing from the Mayflower onto dry land ''[h]aving undertaken for the Glory of God and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia. . . .''"#FN21"(see footnote 21) The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639, the first permanent governing document of that colony, summarized its purpose stating that, ''where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require. . . .'' The Declaration of Independence expressly relies upon the ''Laws of Nature and of Nature's God''"#FN22"(see footnote 22) as self-evident proof for its claims, and after several references to God, appeals to the ''Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions.'' The Continental Congress, on November 1, 1777, declared a day of national thanksgiving even in the midst of the war for independence because they believed ''it is the indispensable Duty of all Men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such further Blessings as they stand in Need of. . . .'' Our sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams, on the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 1837, noted that ''the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth [and] laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.''"#FN23"(see footnote 23) In his Thanksgiving Day proclamation of October 3, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln noted the many blessings that had been bestowed upon this country even in the midst of the Civil War and acknowledged that ''[t]hey are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.'' In 1931, the United States Supreme Court observed that ''[w]e are a Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.''"#FN24"(see footnote 24) I cited some other examples in my original written statement to this subcommittee and there are a myriad of others throughout the history of this country and in the present day.
In short, there never has been a question as to ''which God'' the people of this country have recognized as the source of our law, liberty, and government. When Congress sang ''God Bless America'' on the steps of the Capitol Building on September 11, 2001, no member balked because they were concerned about ''which God.'' When Congress recites the Pledge of Allegiance, there is no question raised as to ''which God'' our nation is under. Our official national motto, ''In God We Trust,'' is not footnoted with a question about ''which God.'' When presidents or would-be presidents conclude their speeches or addresses with ''God bless America,'' no one objects because they are concerned about ''which God'' is being invoked.
A person shrinks from the idea that there is one God who should be acknowledged above others when he or she does not want to acknowledge that there is any authority higher than himself or herself. In his Bill for Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson speaks of ''fallible and uninspired men'' who have ''established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time.''"#FN25"(see footnote 25) The common characteristic among false religions is the installation of man as the ultimate determiner of right and wrong. Have we become like those ''fallible and uninspired men''?
When we refuse to acknowledge the God Whom our forefathers recognized, the only God Who gives freedom of conscience to man, we reject the founding principle of the First Amendment and enshrine the message of totalitarian regimes throughout time: that man is god and will save us from ourselves. Indeed, this nation specifically placed the phrase ''under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to contrast us with the atheism of such regimes."#FN26"(see footnote 26) The public acknowledgment of God has been a part of this country from its inception. We must preserve this right before the federal courts completely take it away.
(Footnote 21 return)
Our Nation's Archive: The History of the United States in Documents 46 (Bruun & Crosby eds. 1999).
(Footnote 22 return)
Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Law of England, the definitive legal commentary of the late Eighteenth Century and heavily relied upon by the Founders, described the ''law of nature'' as originating from God: ''The doctrines thus delivered [by divine revelation] we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity.'' I Blackstone Commentaries 42 (Univ. of Chi. Facs. ed. 1765).
(Footnote 23 return)
William J. Federer, America's God and Country 18 (1996).
(Footnote 24 return)
United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931) (citation omitted).
(Footnote 25 return)
Documents of American History 125 (Henry Steele Commager, ed., 6th ed. 1973).
(Footnote 26 return)
''At this moment of our history the principles underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.'' H.R. 1693, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1954).
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Judge Moore, if it's appropriate, if you think it's appropriate to impeach a judge whose interpretation of the Constitution leads him to violate the terms of the Constitution Restoration Act, is it also appropriate to impeach a judge whose religious convictions and interpretation of the Constitution leads him to flagrantly violate the dictates of the superior courts by displaying a religious monument?
Mr. MOORE. First, Mr. Berman, this statute doesn't require impeachment of anybody. It says Congress can impeach. It repeats something that's already in the Constitution.
Mr. BERMAN. It's says it's an impeachable offense.
Mr. MOORE. It's an impeachable offense. If someone violates the Constitution, if someone takes an oath of the Constitution under article VI to uphold that Constitution and disregards it and rules according to foreign law, which is not the law they are sworn to uphold, yes, I think Congress can impeach them. And, indeed, in 1986, in Bowers versus Hardwick, they said sodomy was not a right under the Constitution by a majority of the Supreme Court. 17 years later, they found it in a European court of human rights.
Mr. BERMAN. And in deciding that it was not a human right, did they rely on any foreign laws and foreign customs and practices?
Mr. MOORE. Absolutely. They said in their opinion--
Mr. BERMAN. Should those judges be-should-was that-was relying on that an impeachable offense?
Mr. MOORE. When they go to swear to the Constitution to uphold it and the morality under that Constitution, and they go to foreign law to destroy that morality, absolutely they could be impeached.
Mr. BERMAN. What about when they go to foreign law to support that morality?
Mr. MOORE. They should not go to foreign law whatsoever, sir, if they are sworn to the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. BERMAN. Okay. What if there were-do you think Congress has the authority to prohibit a class of persons from bringing a Federal case, say under the equal protection clause, to say that no African Americans can bring a legal action.
Mr. MOORE. No.
Mr. BERMAN. Challenging a governmental policy on the basis that it violates equal protection?
Mr. MOORE. No, I don't think they have that authority.
Mr. BERMAN. What about atheists?
Mr. MOORE. Pardon?
Mr. BERMAN. What about atheists?
Mr. MOORE. Atheists are not a class of persons under the Constitution.
Mr. BERMAN. Because?
Mr. MOORE. Because just like Christians are not a class of persons under the Constitution.
Mr. BERMAN. All right. What about-so therefore?
Mr. MOORE. So Christians couldn't bring it and atheists couldn't bring it.
Mr. BERMAN. All right.
Mr. MOORE. We're talking about the definition of first amendment--
Mr. BERMAN. Then, for instance, you could pass a law stripping Jews of the right to bring certain kinds of Federal court actions?
Mr. MOORE. No, sir.
Mr. BERMAN. You just said they're not a class of-blacks are, and--
Mr. MOORE. That's a system of belief. You cannot forbid anyone because of their beliefs-the Government's actions must stay out of the beliefs of people. The beliefs are given by God. It's between God and man that those beliefs exist.
Mr. BERMAN. I asked you whether or not Congress could pass a law stripping African Americans of the right to bring Federal actions claiming that a particular policy violated the equal protection clause.
Mr. MOORE. And I said no.
Mr. BERMAN. And you said no. But then you said atheists could be stripped of that right because-and Christians could.
Mr. MOORE. Could be stripped of what rights, sir?
Mr. BERMAN. To bring a Federal action.
Mr. MOORE. Anybody can bring an action that they want. But there is no class of people of atheists that have-we're talking about freedom of thought and conscience. For them to recognize a class--
Mr. BERMAN. I'm talking about who has access to the Federal courts to raise a constitutional issue.
Mr. MOORE. Every person, no matter if he's an atheist or a Christian. But to recognize--
Mr. BERMAN. And what does this bill do?
Mr. MOORE. But to recognize people for what they believe--
Mr. BERMAN. What does this bill do?
Mr. MOORE. This allows every State and Federal official to acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty and Government. It is something that is historical, legal, and logical. That freedom-now listen.
Mr. BERMAN. What does it prohibit? What does this bill prohibit?
Mr. MOORE. It prohibits-it prohibits when they acknowledge God by its instance--
Mr. BERMAN. What does the bill prohibit?
Mr. MOORE. The bill prohibits Government from interfering with the freedom of conscience of individuals by acknowledging God as sovereign source of law, liberty, and Government. Atheist, Hindus, Buddhists, all have the right to identify with God without Government interference. It carries out the restoration of the first amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Would this stripping of Federal jurisdiction-hear my question, please. Would this stripping of Federal jurisdiction apply to a challenge to a mandated school prayer?
Mr. MOORE. If it was mandated as a form of worship under articles of faith-it would depend on what the State officials said what it was done for. If it's acknowledging God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and Government, not necessarily.
Mr. BERMAN. It requires a specific-it requires everyone to require a specific prayer to--
Mr. MOORE. Any requirement is absolutely establishment. That's right. Any requirement to tell people how they must worship is an establishment of the duties you owe to God and the manner of discharging them.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) co-sponsored The Constitution Restoration Act
"Clearly, the American Conservative Union chose well when it selected Congressman Pence to deliver the keynote address at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference." American Conservative Union
@ "Mr. MOORE. Ma'am" - He is responding to Rep. 'KEROSENE' Maxine Waters who is, of course, vehemently opposed to The Constitution Restoration Act.
She may in fact be the foremost hater in American politics. She is known in her home state as "Maxine the Mouth," or "Mad Maxine," or "Big Bad Max." After she offered rationalizations for the L.A. riots in 1992, one of her antagonists, the radio personality Larry Elder, dubbed her "Kerosene Maxine." Now, her scowl and vituperation are known coast to coast, thanks to her prominence on the Judiciary Committee. She spent most of 1998 reviling Kenneth Starr and propping up Clinton, interpreting the effort to impeach him as (yes) an attack on black America. National Review: Shrill Waters; Move aside, James Carville: Big ...
The Union Of Orthodox Rabbis
Of The United States And Canada
The Rabbinical Alliance Of America
17 Av 5763 · August 15, 2003
PRESS RELEASE / for immediate release
CONTACT: RABBI YEHUDA LEVIN 718 469-6999 Two Major Rabbinical Groups Support
"Ten Commandments" Judge Roy Moore
Two Major Rabbinical Groups Support
Two major Rabbinical organizations, representing over 1000 Orthodox Rabbis, today declared their support for Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore in his battle to keep the Ten Commandments on display in the Supreme Court building in Montgomery, Alabama.
Lawyer groups, led by the ACLU, have demanded that Judge Moore remove the display, citing church-state concerns; and Federal Judge Myron Thompson has given Judge Moore a deadline of August 20 to remove the display. But Judge Moore is refusing to be intimidated.
Rabbi Hirsch Ginsberg of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis said: "The Ten Commandments are the basis of civilized society and the rule of law. It is no accident that legal testimony begins with swearing to tell the whole truth, while holding a Bible. Here, in New York City, many courtrooms have a plaque on the wall, right above the judge's head, proclaiming 'In G-D we trust'."
Rabbi Abraham Hecht of the Rabbinical Alliance added: "It's no surprise that the ACLU, a radical left-wing organization of ambulance-chasing rip-off artists, should object to the Ten Commandments. The Biblical injunctions against lying, stealing, and adultery must make them feel terribly uncomfortable."
Rabbi Yehuda Levin who is representing the two Rabbinical groups in Montgomery, Alabama this week, commented on a nasty New York Times editorial that referred to Judge Moore as a demagogue: "This is the worst kind of savage yellow journalism. The New York Times has lately been rocked by scandals, in which it has been revealed that senior reporters and editorial staff have knowingly fabricated stories and distorted the news. They have some nerve criticizing a moral, intelligent, and courageous man like Chief Judge Moore."
Rabbi Levin will hold a press conference on the steps of the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery on
Friday, August 15, 2003, at 10:00 a.m.
After the press conference, Rabbi Levin is to meet with Chief Judge Moore to make a presentation to him on behalf of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis and the Rabbinical Alliance.
A more perfect analogy would be to consider what the Mass. Supreme Court did with the word, 'marriage.'
To paraphrase the referenced text, it would sound like this:
'Well, folks, we don't know how to define marriage. But, you know, we really thought gays should have the same rights and we felt sorry for them, so we re-defined the word, 'marriage' to include same-sex couples.'
In redefining the word, didn't the Mass. SC destroy the rule of law? Sure it did. It created law, it usurped the powers of congress and made a mockery of our Constitution.
If we are going to restore the Constitution, we'll have to start with the judiciary.
A more perfect analogywould be to consider what the Mass. Supreme Court did with the word, 'marriage.'
Indeed it is!
And thanks for making it!
If we are going to restore the Constitution, we'll have to start with the judiciary.
And inform the President and legislators that they can ACT on their own understanding of the Constitution, which may agree, agree in part, or completely disagree with any opinion of the federal courts. As The Constitution Restoration Act demonstrates; amendment, impeachment and appointment aren't the only means of reigning in rogue courts.
If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.
Bump for later read
That was a long read ... but I LOVED it ... every word!
Rep. Ron Paul did not sign on. I wonder why.
Petition opened March 16, 2004, 6,695 Signatures received for "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" -- H.R. 3799
I wonder if they would host a petition for We the People Act (HR 3893)
Clearly, with (37)Cosponsors citing the same Article III authority as Rep. Paul does in We the People Act (HR 3893), Rep. Paul is on the same solid Constitutional footing as they.
Why then is this getting so much publicity and Ron Pauls Act is virtually unheard of?
For one CRA is easy and low/no risk to be involved. The same must not be the case for We the People Act (HR 3893), but WHY? Perhaps because it directly confronts and negates Roe v Wade and sodomite matrimony, as well as protecting Religious liberty in an even stronger way than CRA.
I suspect if Ron Paul removed the abortion component of his Act it would be much more widely endorsed.
Nevertheless, the CRA is an excellent case to cite to illustrate how Congress will check the courts on cases that are important to them as long as they are not too difficult.
I guess ending the slaughter of millions of Americans waiting to be born is just too difficult.
That is music to my ears. It should be put to song, like a 20 minute rock anthem. Versus going into We The People Act taking back the Constitution and the land. Mel Gibson could do a Music video in the theme of "The Patriot" All of a sudden I am hearing the Soundtrack to Last of the Mohicans, but I'd prefer a 1970's 80's rock band to do it. Kansas, yea the group Kansas! they did some lengthy songs IIRC.
< /caffine rant off" target="_blank" > Community Coffee from Da Big Easy rules.
Pro-life read bump.
Thanks for the ping!
The most important legislation of the year. Hopefully, it will be reintroduced in this :COngress -- and soon.
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.