The Hottest Issue of the 2004
Elections: Curbing the Courts III
What is "the rule of law?" This question is raised in a more fundamental way in the elections of 2004 than ever before. Nowhere is the issue more forcefully presented than in Glassroth v. Moore (2003, 2004). Lower federal judges ordered Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to remove from the State Judicial Building a monument acknowledging the Ten Commandments as the source of our law. When he stood on his oath of office and refused, he was removed from office. Attorney-General Bill Pryor (now a member of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals), issued a statement celebrating the judges' actions as "faithfulness to the 'rule of law'." Pryor had originally defended Moore and should have recused himself from the case. But on Oct. 30, 2003, Pryor defined the "rule of law" as meaning "that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders." What Pryor meant was that when a federal court (even one federal district judge) has heard all appeals and arguments that the judge WANTS to hear, and "resolved a dispute," then all of us must obey the judge's order. What Pryor did not say was that courts MUST UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. District Judge Myron Thompson admitted that he could not define "religion" as used in the First Amendment. How could he uphold a document whose words he could not even define? The federal judges also ignored massive evidence supporting Moore's position. And they did not acknowledge that the court had NOT "resolved this dispute," except in the most technical way. The one portion of Pryor's statement that is accurate is that "we can work to change the law (i.e., the judges' orders) (italics added)." Congress now has that opportunity by passing the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (H.R.3799/S.2092). This bill, as currently proposed, contains three major provisions:
- Withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court the power to hear any challenge to "an acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government" by any government official (national, state, or local);"
- A prohibition upon any reliance on foreign or international laws or action (except English law) in interpreting the U. S. Constitution;
- Any federal judge who violates (a.) or (b.) may, for that reason, be impeached and convicted, and be found guilty of violating the "good behavior" standard required of federal judges by the Constitution.
This bill is a significant step in the right direction, especially with a few alterations:
- Allow our courts to consider the non-English antecedents of English law which influenced the English Common Law (e.g., the Ten Commandments).
- Add these new provisions:
- No federal court can hear challenges to this Act.
- "No national official has the authority to enforce any court decisions contrary to this Act, nor shall any federal funds be used to enforce court decisions contrary to this Act."
Support the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004!
Curbing the Courts: What Can You Do?
America is engulfed in the flames of a culture war. And the Rule of Law is being buried under a mountain of court decisions attacking the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, other acknowledgements of God in public, and even the institution of marriage. We can and we must fight back in the 2004 elections!
Inform your Senators and Congressmen about Court Watch's "Court-Curbing" Package, including three Congressional bills, and urge their support of the package:
- A revised and merged "Religious Liberties Defense Act" to protect Americans' right to acknowledge God in such forms as the Pledge of Allegiance, displays of the Ten Commandments, and our national motto "In God We Trust;"
- A slightly revised "Constitution Restoration Act" to protect government officials' right to acknowledge God as the source of our law and to protect us from the intrusion of foreign and international law into our constitutional system;
- The "Marriage Protection Act," which protects each state from a federal judicial mandate that that state recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state; the House has already passed this bill.
Secure and share copies of our Court Watch "2004 Election Packet" for Reclaiming the Constitution; this unique tool includes:
- A summary copy of our constitutionalist principles, "The Constitutionalist Manifesto: A Declaration of Independence from Judicial Supremacy;"
- A unique candidate questionnaire which reveals candidates' basic beliefs about the Constitution, culture, and courts and which is appropriate for candidates for virtually any office;
- An Omnibus Party Resolution on the Constitution and the Courts which should be vigorously promoted as our political parties finalize their party platforms.
Make the issue of curbing the courts in order to reestablish the Rule of Law in America a major issue with every citizen and politician whom you can influence.
Visit the web sites of the Blackstone Institute, Eagle Forum, and Eagle Forum's Court Watch for much more ammunition to use in the 2004 elections.
Subscribe to a fine new Christian world view publication, Rare Jewel Magazine. It focuses on the hottest issues of our culture and Constitution-the tyrannical courts, marriage and the family, education, etc.
Working Together in the 2004 Elections, We CAN Make A Difference!