The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (H.R. 3799 and S. 2082) represents the latest effort to employ US Constitution Article III, Section 2 to compel federal courts to act within their authorized jurisdiction. (See our Feb. 23 entry.) Phyllis Schlafly writes:
This legislation would clarify that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases brought against a federal, state or local government or officer for acknowledging God. The bill is in response to the dozens of cases filed nationwide asking federal judges to declare the recitation in public schools of the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it includes the words "under God," or asking that the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings or parks be held unconstitutional.The bill's sponsors believe that federal courts lack the authority to hear such cases or render such a decision. No law bans the acknowledgment of God, and the U.S. Constitution delegates "all legislative powers" to the Congress and none to the courts.
. . . So how could a handful of activist judges in the last couple of years presume to ban the acknowledgment of God from documents, monuments, songs, expressions and practices that have been part of our culture throughout our history? The answer is that the federal courts, year by year, decision by decision, have been asserting judicial supremacy over the other branches of government, and Congress and the American people have been letting them get by with this unconstitutional power grab.
The federal courts have been systematically dismantling the architecture of our unique constitutional republic with its separation of powers. James Madison believed that the preservation of liberty depends on the separation of powers, and that "its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places."
The Constitution Restoration Act affirms the separation of powers by re-asserting the rule, which had been properly observed by federal courts for two centuries, that they have no jurisdiction to consider cases involving the acknowledgment of God. As late as 1952, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas declared: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." It is long past time for Congress to mandate that federal courts may not censor public acknowledgments of God, adding this to other "exceptions" and "regulations" to federal court jurisdiction.
This is the way the framers of our Constitution intended that Congress would, as Alexander Hamilton wrote, keep the judiciary as the "least powerful" branch of government and see to it that "judges should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty."
In a sad testament to just how far afield federal judicial philosophy has drifted, the proposed law also contains a provision prohibiting courts from relying on foreign laws, administrative rules or court decisions. That judges should apply only domestic law ought to be obvious, but five US Supreme Court judges have actually cited foreign sources, so for these "wise" jurists, the obvious must be codified.
Use our Take Action page to express to your representative and senators support for these companion bills.
(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)
