News Intelligence Analysis

 

 

Editor's Note:

To Read the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, (HR 1070 IH) as introduced in the House click here: The language in these bills: both the Senate version and the House version are almost identical with the 2005 versions, with the exception of one word--which has been changed. The word "element" in the 2004 version has been changed to the word "entity" in the 2005 version.

To Read the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (S. 520) as introduced in the Senate by Mr. Shelby and Mr. Brownback and Mr. Burr, click here.

To Read an analysis of this bill (the 2005 versions are identical to the 2004 versions), read: "Dominionist Bill Limits the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction" by Katherine Yurica

 

Published by Thomas

 

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

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.
END

 

 


Google
 

 

Send a letter
to the editor
about this article

 

Read the Discussion and
implications of this act:
The Constitution Restoration
Act of 2004

 

House and Senate Versions for 2005

 

See Also:

 

Judge Roy Moore Introduces
Constitution Restoration Act 2004

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Feb. 13, 2004 – Alabama’s
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Rep. Robert Aderholt
(R-Haleyville) join with former Chief Justice Roy S. Moore
in introducing the Constitution Restoration Act 2004 to
restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the United States
Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that
jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the
United States.

 

S 1558 IS, A Bill to Restore Religious Freedoms

 

 

Law and Legal Issues

 

Battle for the Judiciary Directory

 

 

Sandra Day O'Connor Criticises
Republicans Who Criticize the
Judiciary
March 10, 2006

Katherine Yurica

Speaking at Georgetown University, former
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
warned against the danger of a potential American
dictatorship that begins with intimidation of the
judiciary. Citing specific examples, without
naming either Tom Delay or Sen. John Cornyn,
both Repuplican critics of the courts and both
from Texas, she stated their attacks pose "a
direct threat to our constituional freedom."
Freedom is not possible without an independent
judiciary to protect individual rights she said.
O'Connor warned against "nakedly partisan
reasoning."

 

 

Rogue Republican Dons
in Congress Tear Up the
Constitution, Exclude Democrats
and Accept a New Title:
"The
Godfathers"

 

 

The Despoiling of America
by Katherine Yurica

 


Back to The Yurica Report Home Page

Copyright © 2004 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.