News Intelligence Analysis
Dominionist Bill Limits the
Supreme Court's Jurisdiction
The Constitution Restoration
Act of 2004 and Now 2005
By Katherine
Yurica
February 19, 2004
Editor's
Note: The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 is almost identical
to the 2004 version with
the exception of one word--which has been changed. The word "element"
in the 2004 version has been changed to the word "entity."
However the Bill numbers have also been changed. The
2005 House bill is HR 1070 and the 2005 Senate
bill is S. 520. Be sure to read the implications
of this bill.
[Editor's Note: August 7, 2004. We have
incorporated a portion of Katherine Yurica's article, "For Whom the Bell Tolls"
to give reader's of this article a more complete view of the
potential damage this bill can wreak in American life.]
Editor's Note: February 28, 2004 Update:
This article omits one fact that should have been included: the
bill was drafted by former Judge Roy Moore's lawyer, Herb
Titus. Those who have read The
Despoiling of America will know that Titus
was the first Dean of Pat Robertson's School of Public Policy
and is a known Dominionist who has advocated the abolition of
the government's licensing powers. He has argued that government
oversteps when it licenses lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc. Also,
an earlier bill titled "Religious
Liberties Restoration Act," S. 1558 dated July 21, 2003,
specifically authorizes the display of the ten commandments and
other religious references and exempts
such items from judicial review by the U.S. Federal Courts.
Our question is: What is actually intended by the Constitution
Restoration Act of 2004?]
We wrote about it before it happened, we
called them by their own name, Dominionists, and we told
you that Dominionists in Congress were about to fire their first
guns for reformation of the American government.
On January 6, 2004, the Yurica Report
published “America
Stands on the Edge of a Grave Constitutional Crisis Linked to
Pat Robertson.” In that article we reported that televangelist
Pat Robertson devised a number of ways of limiting the power
of the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts of America.
To quote from the article, Robertson said as early as March 24,
1986, “Congress could say, ‘There’s a whole class
of cases you can’t hear’ and there’s nobody can
do anything about it!”
On February 11, 2004, we published “The Despoiling of America”
by Katherine Yurica. To quote Robertson from this article, “God’s
plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen to take dominion…to
reign and rule…There’ll be a reformation….We are
not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme
Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. We’re not
gonna stand for it. We are going to say, ‘We want freedom
in this country, and we want power…’”
Both these articles reported a crisis in
our government and revealed the plan of the far right Dominionists
who control Congress to reconstruct our constitution and “restore”
it to subservience to a theocratic religion under God and under
biblical law. It is the first step in a series of steps to take
over and control the government of the United States of America
as outlined in “The Despoiling of America.”
Today the Yurica Report learned that
on February 11 , 2004 Dominionist leaders in congress made their
move; they introduced
a bill in both houses called The
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004. Among the sponsors
of the bill are Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael
Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. Zell Miller
(Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham
(South Carolina).
The House version is H.R.
3799 and the Senate version is S. 2082. The bill limits the
U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts to hear cases involving
“expressions of religious faith by elected or appointed
officials.”
Although the claim
by its sponsors appears to be that the intention is to prevent
the courts from hearing cases involving the Ten
Commandments or a Nativity Scene in a public setting from
being reviewed, the law is drawn broadly and expressly includes
the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law by
an official in his capacity of executing his office. John
Giles, Alabama President of Christian Coalition said, "The
greatest unbridled abuse by the federal judiciary for over forty
years has been in the area of redefining the acknowledgement
of God as the sovereign source of law...We define this as judicial
activism, making law from the bench. These unconstitutional rulings
have gone unchecked by other branches of government."
The following proposed law will be added
to Sec. 1260
of Title 28, Chapter 81 of the U.S. Code:
“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 government.”
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. For a full description of the legal and practical
implications of this bill, we have incorporated the following
section from Katherine Yurica's article, "For
Whom the Bell Tolls:"
"The writings of Dominionists are filled
with examples of how they intend to extend biblical law, including
the death penalty to homosexuals, adulterers and heretics. The
2002 Republican Party Platform
of Texas is as fine an example of unmitigated hatred as one
can find anywhere for it insulates criminals and wrong doers
from prosecution for even murder and hate crimes. The Texas Republican
Platform is also significant because Texas is the home state
of President George W. Bush. We have to assume since he didn’t
object to the platform publicly, that he tacitly accepted it.
It reads in part:
“Homosexuality
– …We are opposed to any granting of special legal
entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited
to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children
by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits.
We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who
oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional
values.” (Emphasis added.)
“Texas
Sodomy Statutes –“The Party opposes the decriminalization
of sodomy.”
"Sodomy, it should be noted is applicable
to all human sexuality, heterosexual or homosexual, including
“blow jobs.” One cannot help wondering if the
Texan Republicans, who oppose the decriminalization of sodomy,
would arrest members of their own party.
"If we juxtapose the wording of the
Constitution
Restoration Act of 2004 to the underlined sentence in
the Texas Republican Party Platform above, we have to ask whether
the Dominionists in Congress are preparing a way to allow “biblical
executions” and unthinkable acts of hatred to go without
punishment of any kind. H.R. 3799 reads:
“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 government.”
(To be added to Sec. 1260 of Title 28, Chapter 81 of the
U.S. Code and see also S. 2082.)
"I raised the question ....because
the judiciary is “an element” of the federal, state
and local governments, does this wording, if it becomes law,
allow any judge to impose biblical punishments or to sanction
biblical punishments of religious fanatics without being subject
to review by the Supreme Court or the federal court system? The
answer appears to be “Yes.”
"Follow me here: since a judge may
assert that God is the sovereign source of law under HR 3799,
may not that judge decree God’s law as stated in the Bible
to be supreme over every law written by mere mortals? By definition
the word “sovereign” means: “the supreme repository
of power in a political state.” (Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary). So the sentence in HR 3799 (and S.
2082) establishes the right of an individual to assert God’s
sovereignty over all laws in the United States.
"If a judge can make this assertion
with impunity, what prevents him, should this ill advised law
pass Congress, from applying biblical law instead of the law
of the state? Of course he could be struck down by the appellate
courts in his state—but what if all those courts are packed
with Dominionists or the legislative body can impeach any judge
in the state for failure to follow God’s sovereign laws?
"Let’s take a hypothetical situation.
A homosexual or an adulterer is arrested for violating the sodomy
laws of Texas. Regardless of the punishment for the crime of
sodomy in the statute, the Old Testament portion of the Bible
establishes the death penalty. So the Dominionist appointed judge
finds God to be the sovereign source of law.
"He then finds the defendant guilty
as charged and issues the death penalty. All the appellate judges
in the state uphold the lower court judge out of fear. If HR
3799 (or S. 2082) is passed and becomes the law, the defendant
would not be able to appeal to the Supreme Court or any federal
court for help because the law prohibits the Supreme Court from
hearing a case decided upon the basis of [an] individual's belief
that God is the sovereign source of law.
"Americans are about to lose everything
that makes America great. If you doubt my assertions about the
hatred being directed against homosexuals in America, go see
the web site of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). It’s
named http://www.godhatesfags.com/
The church claims to “vigorously preach the five points
of Calvinism.”
"The church asks you to agree that
you are visiting their hellish web site of your own free will.
You are required to click on the WBC’s “Enter”
icon at the bottom of the page. Don’t allow your children
to see this material. Prepare yourself for one of the most vile
and violent exhibitions of hatred from a Baptist Church you will
ever see. There are photographs of sweet faced young people;
one of them is Matthew
Shepard, who was tied to a fence and beaten to death in Wyoming.
His photo is attached to a monument “dedicated to [his]
entry into hell,” which the church plans to erect in the
Casper City Park. There is also a photograph of Diane Whipple,
the young woman who was killed by two giant dogs in San Francisco.
She is shown surrounded by the flames of hell. If you stay long
enough, you’ll hear the screams of the victims. The church’s
web page shouts out that homosexuals will burn in hell forever.
The WBC has clocks going to inform the viewer how long the victim
has been suffering the torments of hell. Click
here if you want this verified.
"But is hell reserved for homosexuals?
Homosexuals aren’t even mentioned, but the lecherous get
a hefty whack! (KJV) It’s instructive to know that according
to the New Testament, hell was made for the devil and his angels.
And according to the apocalyptic book of Revelations, hell will
be occupied by the group God hates the most: liars and the cowardly
who submit to the liars."
In addition the proposed bill punishes sitting
judges by requiring impeachment and removal, if they rely on
decisions from another state or jurisdiction, such as another
state’s constitution, law, administrative rule or judicial
decision. The proposed Section
201, “Interpretation of the Constitution” reads:
“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.”
Because the term
“foreign” is a term of art in the law and can refer
to another jurisdiction within the United States, like another
state or another county, the proposed law is troubling. One
news talk show host in favor of the bill claims that the
section is aimed directly at Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day
O’Conner and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
So important is the passage of this bill
to Dominionists one of their activists said, “The passage
of this bill should be regarded as the most important item on
the conservative agenda
this year! It is…more important than who wins the White
House this November.”
In light of the reports we have published,
every Senator and Congressman and all Americans should be informed
of the pending Dominionist reformation of our judiciary and through
it, our entire American democracy.
NOTES:
Note added April
11, 2006: Black's Law Dictionary, for example defines "foreign
courts" to mean: "The courts of a foreign state or
nation. In the Unitd States, this term is frequently applied
to the courts of one of the states when their judgments or records
are introduced in the courts of another."
Read and or make comments about this
article on our message board
Katherine Yurica was educated at East Los
Angeles College, U.S.C. and the USC school of law. She worked
as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent
for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative
reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher
of the Yurica Report.
Send
a letter
to the editor
about
this article
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.
House and Senate Versions
for 2005
Constitution Restoration
Act of 2004 HR 3799 IH
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."
Related
Articles:
America Stands on the
Edge
of a Grave Constitutional
Crisis
Linked
to Pat Robertson
The Despoiling of America
How George W. Bush became
the head of the new American
Dominionist Church/State
Rogue Republican Dons
in Congress Tear Up the
Constitution, Exclude Democrats
and Accept a New Title: "The
Godfathers"
Excerpts
from
The
New Messiahs
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright ©
2004 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.