The Constitution Restoration Act - Page 2

#11 03-16-2004, 11:35 AM

Well, let's have a look see:

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004
HR 3799 IH
108th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 3799
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

Question: Which cases? "Promote" "federalism"? What do THEY mean by "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 I--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.'.

Randy here: Sounds like they're leaving people to the "mercy" of the State courts. I'm not sure how comforting that really is. And yes, I'm thinking specifically of things like cases re income taxes, etc.

(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 II--INTERPRETATION

SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

<A name=anchor524909></A>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.

Randy here: WOOP WOOP WOOP& BS detector in high gear! On one hand--and thanks to James--I don't know if they're talking about Constiution OF/FOR the US, etc.& But they're not supposed to rely on state "constitutions," but THEN they turn right around, without taking a breath, and write they will rely only on "English common law" and "constitutional law" (small "c")....Oh, here we go again. White-man speak with forked tongue.

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

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.
END

Back to me: I don't trust 'em, period. End of discussion. If "it" works for the "government" in any capacity, at all, period, "it" ain't to be trusted. As my ol' man used to say: "I wouldn't trust 'em in an outhouse if they were wearing a muzzle."&

Randy

#12 03-16-2004, 12:04 PM

I had read the legislation when it came out, and still have a copy on my desk.

In a nutshell... it just provides immunity from prosecution for the likes of Judge Moore... that is all it is about.

Nothing for the alleged slaves!

&

&

Ice · #13 03-16-2004, 12:27 PM

Do you think they are going to start taking steps to insure their own freedom while remaining in opposition to our own?

Another thought... If the guys that put this together ARE just like us... maybe they should be approached about the stuff we discuss here... like the IRS and the law that supports our position... what do you think their thoughts on these issues would be??

Do you think that any judge is willing to take on the IRS when the IRS keeps detailed files on those judges?

&

#14 03-16-2004, 01:03 PM

That is why I rely on The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.

There is no immunity for those idiots (alleged government officials) for their commercial activity (it is all commercial activity).

And, remember, Rights not timely claimed are deemed waived... hence, waiver of immunity!

Do you think that maybe I should start another thread on this subject-matter (smile)?

&

&

&

#15 03-16-2004, 07:23 PM

[quote= Ice]

Do you think they are going to start taking steps to insure their own freedom while remaining in opposition to our own?

Yes. This is major CYA, on their part.

Another thought... If the guys that put this together ARE just like us... maybe they should be approached about the stuff we discuss here... like the IRS and the law that supports our position... what do you think their thoughts on these issues would be??

They'd be patronizing, condescending, pretentious in their feign of "compassion" for our plight, then right back to business as usual.

Do you think that any judge is willing to take on the IRS when the IRS keeps detailed files on those judges?

Now we're getting into topics I live for. We, in this country, LOVE movies/books, etc (i.e., "entertainment") that gives us the "loner" versus the "system," the one man/woman who refuses to "play the game" and fights back, that one "hero" who simply can not be "bought."

In real life? To hell with that, right? We live by the mantras of "to get along, go along," "don't make waves," "you can't fight city hall," and a list too long for this post. And what is the "public reaction" when an "ordinary hero" comes along, someone who WILL and DOES "refuse to take it"? Think "conspiracy nut," "anti-American," and on and on.

Oh, hell, now I'm just pissed off....

Randy

Ice · #16 03-16-2004, 08:36 PM

Didn't mean to get you riled up there Randy!

But you hit the nail on the head again... at this rate we'll have a house built in no time at all.

&

#17 03-17-2004, 04:09 AM

I will start a thread entitled:

"Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976"

Randy, could you pull up the language/Act like you did herein with this Act? It would same time in typing?

&

#18 03-17-2004, 07:56 AM

I almost forgot...

There is one tidbit of information that I did gather from an article at Rense.com entitled: "The Most Important Legislation In The Last Fifty Years", and that is;

&

"Thankfully, our founding fathers understood this potentiality and prescribed a way for Congress to deal with the matter. Under Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power and authority to regulate and except appellate jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court."

&

Ofcourse they're not going to fill in the blank for us are they?