More news from the American Taliban (aka The Republican party)

Five distinquished Republican senators, including Trent Lott, have proposed a bill innocuously called the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005. It states in part: Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

In other words, if your civil rights are violated in the name of religion (basically anything passed by Republicans in the last four years), no federal court could even TAKE the case, let alone overturn it on Constitutional grounds.

Wow.

There is no chance of this passing. But, I find your decleration of the Republican Party as being "The American Taliban" rather humorous. To think, the Republicans are trying to pass a piece of legislation through democratic means. Sounds just like the Taliban, who also used democratic means to accomplish their religously oriented goals. Oh wait, they didn't. I guess you were just trying to make a joke through incongruous means.

I surely hope the Nobel Institute rejects your petition for the Nobel Prize for Physics. Clearly your not an empiricist like most legitmate scientists otherwise you would not have thrown out a red herring in your comparison of the Republicans to the Taliban.

KidRock, Beeblebrox commonly refers to Republicans and religious individuals as "douche bags", therefore his bias is to be expected. Plus, in his nomination thread, he stated that a Nobel Prize in Physics would mean he was "more smarter [sic]".

That was my reaction too.

And that makes it okay?

You DO understand that my intentional mispeaking there was a JOKE, right? Has anyone here known me to use phrases like "more smarter."

And that thread wasn't about my nomination for the Nobel Prize, but rather Fox News Channel's rather lax standards of legit credentials for speakers who support their agenda. In other words, their "Nobel Prize nominated" guest had about as much claim on a Nobel Prize nomination as I do. Which would be NONE.

It means that Republicans are throwing this option out as some "red meat" for part of their base which is Christian. They know it doesn't have a chance in hell of passing.

Ah, I should have known it all boiled down to Fox News and the "Republican Douce Bags". Is there not any other new material for you to gripe about? :wink:

Again, does that make it okay?

If it passes into law, then I would answer no. But since it will not pass, I have no problem with it.

Rather than griping about me griping, why not address the actual issue? These douche bags, after all, are on your side representing you. How do you feel about them proposing this kind of legislation?

No it doesn't. But then again a lot of what happens in government is corrupt. And it is not just one party.

Somehow, I doubt that.

There goes the "douche bag" phrase again.

As far as the legislation, I'm not quite certain I understand its implications, I need a clear head, and I'm exhausted so I won't comment on it.

Whatever the case, it seems like an attempt to gain more support from their base, similar to the "Defense of Marriage Act" which also failed in Congress.

I don't.

That's just it. There's nothing corrupt about what they're doing. These are party leaders proposing actual legislation with support from a significant portion of their base.

And this legislation would make it a CRIME for the Supreme Court to hear cases in which your rights have been banned in the name of religion.

No, in other words, the president cannot be reprimanded by the courts for saying that god is the source of his/her political beliefs. From the summary you've pasted, civil liberties of individuals do not come into play in any way, shape or form.

I didn't mean corrupt in that sense.

Consider this: In the 2000-2001 Georgia general assembly, which, until last year was controlled by Democrats (House, Senate and Governor), the district lines were required to be re-drawn after Census data. The Democratic leaders, contoured the districts to an effect that they would have nearly cost every Republican his seat. They made districts that stretched the entire length of the state, and some that were split into two or three parts.

Was this wrong or techincally corrupt? No. Was it ethical? Certainly not.

:pop:


Megamoze vs. Krem is more fun than Freddy vs. Jason and Alien vs. Predator combined.

Um, the Defense of Marriage Act actually DID pass both houses of Congress and was signed into law by Clinton in 1996.

What you're referring to is the so-called Marriage Amendment to the Constitution that did not make it out of Congress, although it was just 12 votes shy of the 60 needed to get to a final Senate vote, with all but 3 Democrats opposing and all but 6 Republicans supporting it.

You are correct. I'm sorry I had my titles mixed up. I believe the Georgia Constitutional Ammendment (which did pass) was also titled the "Defense of Marriage Act". I'm not sure though.

No, in other words, the president cannot be reprimanded by the courts for saying that god is the source of his/her political beliefs. From the summary you've pasted, civil liberties of individuals do not come into play in any way, shape or form.[/quote]

First of all, why would anyone bother with such a law when there has been no issue raised in regards to the courts about God as a source of liberty? Bush makes such claims all the time without anyone raising a legal issue of it.

It is, however, relevant to a swath of conservative legislation being overturned at the federal level by what conservative Republicans consider a radical activist federal judiciary. For example, the recent Texas sodomy law which concerned plaintiff's seeking "relief against an entity of State government" concerning a law based on "that entity's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

It would also protect the Defense of Marriage Act from being overturned.

And if you look at it in context, it is very definitely part of a long running conservative agenda to limit the power of the judiciary, particularly at the federal level.

On a side note, I missed it in that other thread but did you finally drop the pretense of NOT being a right-wing conservative posing as a "not on either side" libertarian?

And dismiss it all you want, but these kinds of laws will continue to pass as long as there are people like you, Kidrox, and Krem to defend them.

I don't remember defending anything. My only contention was your comparison of the Taliban to the GOP, of which you conviently brushed aside my criticism.

Your words about them proposing this bill: "I have no problem with it."

If that's not defending it, then what is?

First of all, why would anyone bother with such a law when there has been no issue raised in regards to the courts about God as a source of liberty? Bush makes such claims all the time without anyone raising a legal issue of it.[/quote]
I don't know why they'd be pushing for such a law, but other parts of it that you did not paste do relate to recent issues. One of them is prohibiting the courts from relying on foreign entities' opinions and legislations in making domestic decisions.

In any case, they could be just covering their ass for the future. The civil liberties bit still does not follow.


The courts can still overturn any law, including the one being discussed in this thread, unless it makes its way into the Constitution.

Your ad hominem attacks are getting more and more amusing. What's the matter, can't stick with the topic?