|
Judge Roy Moore introduces
"Constitutional
Restoration Act of 2004"
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Feb. 13, 2004 - Alabama's Senator Richard Shelby
(R-AL) and Representative Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville) join with
former Chief Justice Roy S. Moore in introducing the Constitution
Restoration Act 2004, (CRA), to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the
United States Supreme Court, and all lower federal courts, to that
jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States.
Q. What is the purpose of this bill?
A. The purpose of the CRA is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction
of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to
that jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United
States. The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law,
liberty, and government is contained within the Declaration of
Independence which is cited as the "organic law" of our Country by
United States Code Annotated. The constitution of every state of the
Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of
the federal government. The acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate
subject of review by federal courts. The CRA also protects and
preserves the Constitution of the United States by restricting
federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign jurisdictions and
international law as the supreme law of our land.
Q. Does this bill reverse Supreme Court precedent?
A. To the extent that any decision of the United States Supreme
Court, or that of any federal district court made prior to or after
the effective date of the Act, prohibits the acknowledgment of God as
the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government, such precedent
would not be binding on state courts.
Q. Does this bill intrude into the constitutional powers of the
federal judiciary?
A. No. Use by Congress of Article III regulation of the appellate
jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court, and other federal
courts, is provided by the Constitution as a check on the Judicial
Branch when it exceeds its jurisdiction. When federal courts prohibit
the acknowledgment of God, they deny the very source of life, liberty,
and pursuit of happiness which our Founding Fathers specifically
recognized in the Declaration of Independence as unalienable rights
given by God. To prohibit a state official from recognizing God, is a
violation of the Tenth Amendment, as well as the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution. If Congress cannot make a law
restricting states from the acknowledgment of God under the First
Amendment, how can the Supreme Court enforce a law which Congress
cannot make? The CRA would restore the balance of power among the
various branches of government, and restore the fundamental precepts
upon which our Constitution, and government, is based.
Q. Does the CRA promote an establishment of religion?
A. No. The right to acknowledge God is not, and never has been, the
establishment of religion. According to the United States Congress,
in the 1954 legislation placing "Under God" in the Pledge: "A
distinction must be made between the existence of religion as an
institution and a belief in the sovereignty of God." The actions of
state and federal officials from the adoption and implementation of
the First Amendment, illustrate that the acknowledgment of God was
never intended to be prohibited by the First Amendment. Even the
First Congress (which agreed on the words of the First Amendment) on
September 25, 1789, adopted a resolution on that very day, asking
President Washington to declare a day of thanksgiving and prayer to
Almighty God for the peaceful manner in which the Constitution was
formed. From that time to the present, both state and federal
officials have continuously acknowledged God in oaths, prayers, and
official ceremonies. Eight days after Congress requested the
president to declare a day of thanksgiving and prayer, President
Washington did exactly that, on October 3, 1789, in his first
Presidential Proclamation, stating, "Whereas, it is the duty of all
nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his
will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his
protection and favor..."
Q. Does the CRA deny other faiths in America?
A. No. The freedom of conscience and right to worship God according
to the dictates of conscience, are the very objects guaranteed by the
First Amendment. Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the
Constitution regarding the First Amendment stated: "The rights of
conscience are indeed beyond the reach of human power, they are given
by God, and cannot be encroached upon by any human authority without a
criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as, of
revealed religion."
Q. What are the practical effects of CRA on pending legislation?
A. This bill would cover all present bills before Congress
regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments, National Motto
"In God We Trust," and all other acknowledgments of God. Furthermore,
this bill would preserve freedom of conscience and equal treatment
under law guaranteed by the Constitution by restricting federal
intrusion into our right to acknowledge God. People are never to be
judged on their thoughts in a court of law, and the right to believe
as one chooses is a right given by God, not by government.
Q. Does the CRA affect the religious test provisions of Article VI?
A. No. The right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of
one's conscience, should never be used as a test or standard for
people to seek or hold public office.
Q. What would prevent the United States Supreme Court from
declaring the CRA unconstitutional?
A. The authority of Congress under Article III is specifically
enumerated, and cannot be questioned by another branch of
government. Should the Supreme Court resort to the law of foreign
nations or the European Court of Human Rights for authority,
impeachment and removal from office are appropriate
remedies.
Conflict between the various branches of government is not
without historic precedent. The control of funding and power of
impeachment are traditional controls over the Judiciary by
Congress. Separation of powers is a critical part of our
Constitution; nevertheless, something more egregious happens when a
branch of government intrudes its powers into the freedom of
conscience to acknowledge God secured by the First Amendment.
James Madison spoke of such an intrusion when he stated in the
Memorial and Remonstrance:
"The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the
metes and bounds which separate each department of power may be
invariably maintained, but more especially, that neither of them be
suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the
people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the
commission from which they derive their authority, and are tyrants. The
people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by
themselves, nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves."
Thomas Jefferson also spoke of such an intrusion in his Bill for
Religious Freedom when he stated:
"That to suffer the Civil Magistrate to intrude his powers into the
field of opinion and restrain the profession or propagation of
opinions on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy,
which at once destroys all religious liberty."
This portion of Jefferson's Bill for religious freedom was, in
fact, quoted by the United States Supreme Court in 1878 in United
States v Reynolds as a violation of what properly belonged to the
church and not the state.
Q. What is the strength of the CRA?
A. The CRA will be supported by all those who oppose judicial
tyranny, as well as all those who respect individual rights and the
right of every state to acknowledge God. This is not restricted to a
political party or persuasion.
Q. Why is the English common law not excluded from consideration of
federal courts in interpreting and applying the Constitution?
A. The common law is incorporated by reference into the United
States Constitution, in the 7th Amendment, and remains a
foundation of American jurisprudence, and an integral part of the
organic law of the land. Our American common law is largely derived
from the more than millennia-long tradition of English common law and
constitutionalism, including the Magna Carta.
Q. What is the meaning of "acknowledgment of God" in the CRA?
A. The public recognition of God by state and federal authorities
exists today in oaths, mottos, documents, prayers, monuments, and
various other medium. Even in our "organic law," the Declaration of
Independence, according to the United States Code Annotated, God is
the very source of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and
government authority. The CRA would preserve and restore the Godly
basis of our law and government.
Q. What does the right to acknowledge God have to do with foreign law?
A. The acknowledgment of God and absolute standards distinguishes
us from other nations and political systems. The source of American
law cannot be replaced by laws of foreign jurisdictions which base
their authority on secular principles.
Q. How does the CRA affect each and every individual?
A. In 1952, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Zorach
v Clauson that, "We are a religious people whose institutions
presuppose a belief in a Supreme Being."
During the last fifty years, federal courts have excluded prayers
in public schools, Ten Commandments in public buildings, manger scenes
at Christmas, and even the Pledge of Allegiance in school
classrooms. Even as late as 1984, the United States Supreme Court
struck down a state statute in Alabama which allowed a moment of
silence "or voluntary prayer."
These examples have one thing in common: "the acknowledgment of
God." The CRA would restore our right to acknowledge God and stop the
ACLU, and other liberal groups, from bringing frivolous suits simply
because they are "offended" because there is a God and a higher
law. Our children would be free to pray before eating lunch in their
schools, public officials would be free to acknowledge the God upon
Whom they take their oath, and the moral basis of our law regarding
marriage could not be altered by judicial activism.
|
