Is this as bad as it sounds?

[Shinken]

[url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2082.IS:[/url]

[QUOTE]`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari [A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court], 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.'.[/QUOTE]

It seems to me as though this proposed Bill is trying to make the Supreme Court unable to even be able to use the power of judicial review (which is the Supreme Court's power to deem a law unconstitutional) in the case of a law that is based on Biblical law. For example, if President Bush manages to get his proposed "Protect the Sanctity ( :rolleyes: ) of Marriage Act" passed, the Supreme Court would never be allowed to use the power of judicial review to repeal the amendment under this proposed bill.

I do realize that this Bill is highly unlikely to ever get passed, but I am still concerned by this Bill (and others similar in nature). Doesn't this run against the separation of Church and State?

(NOTE: the term "writ of certiorari" in the quote is not well-known, so I added the definition in brackets for clarity. This is my source for the definition: [url]http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/certiorari.htm[/url] )

[Adahn]

[b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=darkolivegreen]What have you done?! You've started another separation of church and state thread! Woe be to OB![/color][/size][/font][/b]
[b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=#556b2f][/color][/size][/font][/b]
[b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=#556b2f]This is interesting, though. To me, it means that the Supreme court can't review a law [i]only[/i] because of its religious foundation. If the law somehow violates the [i]Constitution[/i], then it will still be up for judicial review. I assure you, your rights under the (2nd?) Amendment will not be violated in any way.[/color][/size][/font][/b]
[b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=#556b2f][/color][/size][/font][/b]
[b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=#556b2f][/color][/size][/font][/b]
[b][font=Trebuchet MS][color=#556b2f][/color][/font][/b]

[Brasil]

It's certainly a weird one. Though, I checked out the enhanced details, [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03799:@@@L&summ2=m&][u]Enhanced Details[/u][/url], and it's in some type of deliberation, and has some cosponsors and such, and apparently, is still being considered, as the last date of activity was this past September.

I'd doubt it gets passed, though. Farthest it'll get seems to be where it is now. It's in a Subcommittee of a Committee, heh...it's getting shoved into Political Purgatory.

[Harry]

[QUOTE=Shinken][url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2082.IS:[/url]

Doesn't this run against the separation of Church and State? )[/QUOTE]
And that's exactly why the bill will be declared unconstitutional.

[Adahn]

[b][font=Trebuchet MS][color=darkolivegreen]Except for the fact that the bill does not in any way violate the constitution. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, it means a law cannot be up for judicial review [i]only[/i] on the basis of its religious origin. I thought I said that already...[/color][/font][/b]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

Hmm I'm not exactly sure how to perceive this, since I don't live in America it won't actually effect me though stuff like this has a tendency to spread into other countries, hell we only legalised divorce a few years ago. Personally I'm not really sure about separation of Church and State, here in Ireland there's a huge Catholic majority (roughly 85%) so it's pretty intertwined.

In saying that I think people do have the right in a multi-cultural society to have the right not to have someone else's religion pushed on them. Though by that same statement nobody should have the right to tell someone to not practice their religion. This Bill is something I don't really get, I mean Bush already has a majority in the Supreme Court so a move like this doesn't make sense unless he thinks he's going to lose support on issues like a ban on Gay Marriage.

Personally I'm with Siren, I can't see this getting very far up the line, though with "[I]Dubya[/I]" we can never be sure. [/SIZE]

[Harry]

[quote name='Adahn][b][font=Trebuchet MS][color=darkolivegreen]Except for the fact that the bill does not in any way violate the constitution. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, it means a law cannot be up for judicial review [i]only[/i] on the basis of its religious origin. I thought I said that already...[/color][/font'][/b][/quote]
I haven't taken government in a while but I'm pretty sure that Congress can't limit the Supreme Court's power to declare bills unconstitutional. If anything it limits a power that is stated in the Constitution which would make it violate the constitution.

[Adahn]

[quote name='Harry']I haven't taken government in a while but I'm pretty sure that Congress can't limit the Supreme Court's power to declare bills unconstitutional. If anything it limits a power that is stated in the Constitution which would make it violate the constitution.[/quote]
[b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=darkolivegreen]If it were as open and shut as you declare, it wouldn't have gotten as far as it already has. It will probably not get anywhere close to being passed, but it is still a viable amendment.[/color][/size][/font][/b]

[Harry]

[quote name='Adahn][b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=darkolivegreen]If it were as open and shut as you declare, it wouldn't have gotten as far as it already has. It will probably not get anywhere close to being passed, but it is still a viable amendment.[/color][/size][/font'][/b][/quote]
Not really, politicians always want to try to go as far as they can go.

[Lady_Rin]

I have dinner to play with this.

Do you know why there is a separation of church and state? Even being English I took the time to learn why after the dabacle over the words "under god" in the American Pledge of Allegance a few years ago. Two words that someone thought were improper for his daughter to say so he sued the government to have it remove from the pledge. After all of this it actually turned out to be nothing more than a bid for publicity by the girls father in a hotly contested divorce. Yet it drew the entire country into an argument over nothing. You know my beliefs. What is wrong with" under God" being in the Pledge of allegence(sp).

The purpose behind the separation of church and state is so that the church cannot have an undue influence on or control over the the government. A good example is the Spanish Inquisiton. The church told the state what to do. People who argue over the words "under God" and "In God we trust" orfor the removal of the Ten Commandents from a courthouse lobby should be sent back to school to learn about it what separation of church and state really means.

Given to me many years ago was a scroll now framed and on a wall. It's not old or anything special yet the subject matter is telling. It shows the Ten Commandents for several religions. While they are the same fundamentally there are differences in each in the way some of the individual commandments are written. "Thou shall not kil"l instead of" thou shalt not murder", there is a definite difference between killing and murder. This is what the argument is about. Not separation of church and state but who says what in the non-secular world where fundamental beliefs tend to run rampant. Unfortunatley for the world that fundamentalism infects King George IV.

If you want to read the original text of the Ten Commandents look in the Torah, the holy scrolls of the Jewsih people. That's where it all started with Moses [size=1]Played by Charlton Heston with Yul Brynner(sp) as the Pharoe Rameses II[/size]

Befoer you argue church and state see what it says in the constitution. I think your going to be surprised.

To further spur you on; how many of you have read either the Decalration of Independance or the Constitution of the United States? These are two of the most important documets in history and the most important documents of your country. They are akin to the Magna Carta and you should know about it before yo start an argument over semantics.




.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Let's hope this whole thing doesn't go through. That's one of the reasons I'm so against Bush in the first place (a reason I intend to tell my riding instructor the next time we get into a political debate) he has no idea how to separate church from state in his views on politics.

This is also why I'm so afraid of the fact that COndoleeza Rice is now the Secretary of State (she won't say no to Bush) and the Republicans are now in the majority with conservatives abound-including those who strongly oppose Roe vs Wade.

However, this bill is so clearly in violation of the separation of Church and state that the only way it would pass is (hopefully) if everyone was smashed upside the head with a 2x4[/color]