From: Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 - 06:36:48 MST
The proposed law states that
"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
The third article you cite states that
"Because the judiciary is "an element" of the federal, state and local
governments, this wording, if it becomes law, may allow any judge to
institute biblical punishments without being subject to review by the
Supreme Court or the federal court system."
This looks like BS to me. According to the proposed law, if a judge
does some action X and justifies it by recourse to God, the Supreme
Court may still hear a case as to whether X was legal or not. Simply,
the Supreme Court may not hear a case as to whether *the justification
by recourse to God* was legal or not. See the distinction?
The proponents of the law may see it as a step toward some kind of
grander religious agenda. But in itself, I don't see this as dangerous.
I admit I am not a lawyer (though I've reviewed a frightening number of
legal documents in the last 10 years!), so there may be some subtlety
that I'm missing.
-- Ben G
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Philip
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:46 PM
Subject: What would implications be for Singularity if US a theocratic
Has anyone been tracking the implications of the recently introduced
(US) Constitution Restoration Bill of 2004?
I gather a Bill has been introduced into both houses for The
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (House version: H.R. 3799; Senate
version: S. 2082). If passed, the Act would bar the U.S. Supreme Court
and federal courts from hearing cases challenging "expressions of
religious faith by elected or appointed officials". The surface issue
looks pretty trivial eg. preventing Supreme Court reviewing decisions by
government officials to display the ten commandments and other religious
references. However these may not be the only expressions of religious
faith by elected or appointed government officials as the Bill expressly
includes a reference to God being the *sovereign source of law* by an
official in his capacity of executing his office - rather than the
sovereign source of the law being the people of the United States.
Perhaps government officials could make other much more important
executive decisions claiming imunity from court review on the grounds
that they were expressions of religious faith based on the law of God.
The third report suggests that the the religious Right is the source of
the Constitution Restoration Bill of 2004 and that the Bill is meant to
have much more than cosmetic efect.
I'm too unfamiliar with the US body politic to be able to evaluate this
issue adequately but it could perhaps have a direct bearing on
activities in the US that the religious Right feel challenge the
supremacy of God in US society.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT