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removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.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 END COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL: Sen Brownback, Sam - 4/20/2004 [KS] 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 1-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 U-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. END 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 COSPONSORS(20), ALPIIABETICAL: Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. - 2/24/2004 [AL-5] Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 4/27/2004 [NC-3] Rep Lewis, Ron - 4/27/2004 [KY-2] Rep Pence, Mike - 2/11/2004 [IN-6] Rep Souder, Mark E. - 3/25/2004 [IN-3] Rep Bishop, Rob - 4/27/2004 [UT-1] Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 4/27/2004 [MI-11] Rep Pearce, Stevan - 3/18/2004 [NM-2] Rep Wamp, Zach - 3/10/2004 [TN-3] Mr. SMITH. Judge Moore. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROY S. MOORE, Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Berman, I want you to know that I have the greatest respect for the man sitting at thisMr. SMITH. Is your microphone on, Judge Moore? 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 Óscar 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 man |