Louisiana Legislature Could Be the ACLU’s Worst Nightmare
Posted on November 30, 2005
The Louisiana Legislature has approved a resolution urging Congress to pass the Constitution Restoration Act, a bill that would prohibit federal courts from ruling in cases involving government officials who acknowledge God “as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.”
During a special session this month to address Katrina recovery issues, Sen. Mike Smith, a Democrat, introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 30, which passed the body by a 34-0 vote. The measure passed the state House by acclamation.
The first of its kind in the nation, the resolution finds that “… the federal judiciary has overstepped its constitutional boundaries and ruled against the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty and government by local and state officers and other state institutions, including state schools. …”
The measure urges Congress to pass the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, saying that by doing so lawmakers would be “protecting the ability of the people of Louisiana to display the Ten Commandments in public places, to express their faith in public, to retain God in the Pledge of Allegiance, to retain ‘In God We Trust’ as our national motto, and to use Article III, Section 2.2 of the United States Constitution to except these areas from the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.”
This is a bold move. Many of the more paranoid, especially in the far left will scream the slippery slope argument. However, relentlessly overzealous groups like the ACLU have brought this on themselves with their constant attacks of small communities to censor government officials from religious expression while performing their duties. Religious liberty does not stop at the workplace, or the school doors, and religious expression of an individual government official does not equate to government sponsorship of a particular religion.
Touted by some supporters as one of the most important pieces of legislation in U.S. history, the bill states:
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.
The legislation also addresses what many high-court watchers consider a dangerous trend: Supreme Court justices looking to foreign law and rulings for guidance when deciding cases. States the bill: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.
What an excellent piece of legislation, and long overdue. But, wait, here is my favorite part.
Under the bill, any judge who violates the proposed rule by making “extrajurisdictional” decisions will have committed an offense that is grounds for impeachment.
Retired Judge Darrell White praises the legislation as well, and says on his blog that it is The ACLU’s Worst Nightmare.
Contact Congress and tell them to support this!
Linked at The Political Teen
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
16 Responses to “Louisiana Legislature Could Be the ACLU’s Worst Nightmare”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Yeah, its time the left learns that the establishment clause only protects against the government writing a religion into law. Anything else is fair game. No government official or military officer loses their right to public prayer and worship when they take office. No one is required to pray with them, but they are required to TOLERATE it. Isn’t tolerance what the left is all about????
Great idea, except for one critical thing: It’s impossible to acknowledge a supernatural being as being the source of a document known very well to have been written by ordinary human beings. Should we amend the Constitution to allow the Commander-in-Chief to blame global warming on the moodiness of Elmo, the destruction of the Everglades on a drunken Riddler, our failures in Iran on the will of Wallace & Grommit? He would if he could, I’m sure.
If a politician wishes to acknowledge his faith, let him. In so doing he’s merely admitting to being as irrational as many of those who voted for him. But it would be ludicrious to enact legislation by which leaders can effectively justify their actions on the basis of an invisible, inscrutable sky fairy. railer-trash citizens of this fair country do this all the time, but this is not of nearly as much importance as lawmakers doing the same.
I know it gets your pee-pees hard to see moves like this, but this thing’s dead in the water. These clowns can try to hide from the SCOTUS, but it won’t work. Louisiana creationist/wingnuts had their butts handed to them in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) and it’ll happen again, but you almost have to admire those backward [edited] for trying.
Lisa Simpson why dont you try to write something that makes sence. You sound like a jackass brawing for more corn and water
Dethanial wrote:
“Lisa Simpson why dont you try to write something that makes sence. You sound like a jackass brawing for more corn and water”
In English, that would read:
“Lisa Simpson, why don’t you try to write something that makes sense. You sound like a jackass braying for more corn and water.”
But thank you for addressing the substance of my comment. I’m sure if you continue screaming “MOONBAT!” at the top of your gills and retorting only with off-topic ad homs, you can remain convinced that we owe this fine, idiot-laden nation to an all-powerful and upstanding skygod.
Dethanial wrote:
“Lisa Simpson why dont you try to write something that makes sence. You sound like a jackass brawing for more corn and water”
In English, that would read:
“Lisa Simpson, why don’t you try to write something that makes sense. You sound like a jackass braying for more corn and water.”
But thank you for addressing the substance of my comment. I’m sure if you continue screaming “MOONBAT!” at the top of your gills and retorting only with off-topic ad homs, you can remain convinced that we owe this fine, idiot-laden nation to an all-powerful and upstanding skygod.
Lisa….your finger smells like kitty butt…..
Off-topic: Belgium 1st-ever suicide bomber is a female convert to Islam:
http://entre_nous.typepad.com/entre_nous/2005/11/firstever_belgi.html
Ms Simpson makes the logically and factually unsupported point that she knows the powers of a ’supernatural being’. From whence and how did she come to that knowledge?
The essential question is ‘What is the source of existence and consciousness? Many great yogis and jnanis and saints have described their efforts and experiences in arriving at an identical answer — despite practicing different paths and/or enlightenment(buddhahood)by simple grace.
For the so-called rational thinker I commend to you “I AM THAT”, a collection of Q&A with Nisargadatta Maharaj replying, in simple non-mumbo-jumbo language, to skeptical and confused questioners on a variety of essential topics. I believe the book is available thru Acorn Press.
You will not be disappointed.
Howard
Simpson: “Should we amend the Constitution to allow the Commander-in-Chief to blame… our failures in Iran on the will of Wallace & Grommit?…”
Uh… no, we don’t need to. We have Jimmuh Cahtuh to blame for the disaster in Iran. Hopefully, the current Commander in Chief will fix what his predecessor screwed up.
This bill isn’t about amending the Constitution, it’s about restoring what it actually says. The 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
What is SAYS is that CONGRESS shall not establish a Church of the United States and make everyone attend it, and shall also write no laws prohibiting free expression of religion. The “establishment” clause has been so badly misinterpreted by judicial activists for so long that it’s been used again and again to violate the “free expression” clause.
That will not be allowed to go on.
That’s what this bill is about… re-establishing the freedom to practice the religion of our choice in public.
“Actually the point that the various Simpson characters are missing is that the founders where (at the least) Deists, recognizing the work and inspiration of the Creator.”
It goes a little further than that. The FF were not simply deists, but ardent opponents of the very brand of “Christianity” currently in vogue among more backward citizens of modern-day America. History — look into it.
“One of the great losses incurred by humanists is the realization that human beings and “nature” are not the moving spirit which moves all things.”
Actually, “humanists” very much recognize that there is no greater “moving spirit” than the material forces of the universe. Perhaps you meant to write that humanists have lost sight of the fact that God is in charge, which is an entirely vacuous assertion.
“People try to deny that God does these things until they are struck by tragedy and reflexively know they truth, ‘Why did God do this to me??!!!’”
It’s not difficult from the standpoint of basic human psychology to recognize why people like to believe that there’s an ineffable purpose behind seeming iniquities such as the suffering of innocents and all of that. This doesn’t validate the existence of a supernatural higher power, but merely posits it a priori.
“Atheism is the ultimate ego trip, assuming you are wiser than anyone else and denigrating the wisdom of the ages.”
This is so stupid as to defy analysis. Not buying into a whack-job concept just because it’s been pounded into a lot of people’s heads at early stages of their lives is egomaniacal and presumes superior intelligence? Please. It’s the morons who justify their solecistic behaviors and viewpoints on the basis of the superstitions of ancient desert wanderers who epitomize egocentricism.
“Frankly whether you agree with Louisiana or not, the process they are using is the correct one, they are legislating from the legislature not from the bench.”
Nice cliche. The trick will be getting those with brains not chained to wingnut doctrine to agree with you.
I love how arrogant, self-righteous atheists whose “beliefs” are challenged will likely resort to foot-stamping and namecalling – whipping out classics like “so stupid as to defy analysis,” and to call their detractors “morons.”
Well, genius, you “stupidly” just made our point.
Despite your ego, you are not an all-knowing, all-seeing genius, no matter how atheist you are. You are no closer to explaining the great mysteries and questions of existence. You are still a human being, and are still capable of being wrong, incorrect, humbled and malicious.
So sit down and let the ACLU get a taste of its own medicine.
And note that I did not call you a name while saying any of this.
“Actually the point that the various Simpson characters are missing is that the founders where (at the least) Deists, recognizing the work and inspiration of the Creator.”
It goes a little further than that. The FF were not simply deists, but ardent opponents of the very brand of “Christianity” currently in vogue among more backward citizens of modern-day America. History — look into it.
…
Arrogance, repent of it. Thomas Jefferson was a fundamentalist? I think not.
The rest of your post? I’m not going to work with it, simply say that since you have no (refuse to have?) experience with the Numinous, we have no common ground to discuss things. Life Reality and the Universe is bigger than you imagine, or can imagine. I hope you come to know that someday.
I am sorry, I read the first part of your post wrong, my arrogance is showing itself.
I need to apologize for misreading part of your post. I thought you were saying that the FF were fundamentalists where you were saying they weren’t. Wouldn’t you agree that they were a diverse group that recognized that our rights are not granted by the state but are imparted by the Creator? Some of them where quite devout Christians, some where skeptics, I don’t believe any (though I am open to correction) where atheists
“Despite your ego, you are not an all-knowing, all-seeing genius, no matter how atheist you are. You are no closer to explaining the great mysteries and questions of existence. You are still a human being, and are still capable of being wrong, incorrect, humbled and malicious.”
Let me see if I have this time-honored canard straight: Anyone who denies the existence of God is categorically claiming to have the answers to every unsolved scientific and philosophical mystery there is, and is positing that he’s never wrong and is perfect in every imaginable way.
If I notice that someone is consistently adding 2 + 2 and getting 5 and point this out to him, does this mean I’m claiming to be a mathematical genius? Given the equal amount of evidence for the validity of the above summation and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, it’s a valid comparison. Denying that the moronic Christian god construct has any place in useful discussion isn’t tantamount to advertisting knowledge of the origins of the cosmos.
Look, pal, I know it’s inconvenient to recognize that plugging human knowledge gaps with God is frivolous, and that with this metaphorical band-aid taken out of the equation we’re forced to confront the fact that not everything is as cut-and-dried as religious fanatics past and present wish it were so their brains wouldn’t be taxed by concepts like natural selection and plate tectonics. But the easy way out usually isn’t the truthful one, and that’s certainly true in this case.
“And note that I did not call you a name while saying any of this.”
Except for arrogant, self-righteous, etc. I take it your attention span isn’t the best? (Not that it matters; maintaining a veneer of politeness doesn’t make you any less wrong, nor would me being rude invalidate my points. You act as though truth and bearing are interdependent.)
Regardless of whether any of the FF’s were Christian, Jefferson as a deist did not support religion, per se, or any church.
I don’t think you guys get that most of us who are agnostics, atheists and humanists (who may be either of those things or even religious) don’t give a damn what religions or Gods in which you guys believe. We care that such thinking–faith, which requires the suspension of critical thinking on most if not all conflicts related to your various and sundry dogmas– leaves your minds open for the most pernicious manipulation. I know you won’t accept the Republican party is playing you like a fiddle–that would be too much to ask–so you leave the rest of us no choice but to devote ourselves–with fervor easily matching yours for religion–to disabling, blocking, undoing and otherwise derailing your efforts to institutionalize by law mandatory relinquishment of the right to deny what Ms. Simpson so delightfully described as beliefs about a “sky fairy” (damn, that’s funny) being the founder of our country.