Wednesday, June 22, 2005

And so, the Theocracy Begins

Maxed Out Moma, a very respectable blogger, has told me time in and time out that there is no fear of a right wing rise of theocracy in this country. Well, I hate to tell you MOM, but it has already begun.

As I fist pointed out in an earlier post that the Republicans are trying to make it illegal for the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (H.R. 3313 & H.R.1100), now, I find even more disturbing bills. H.R. 1070 was presented to Congress on March 3, 2005. The text of the bill is as follows:

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 entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

This means that no court shall be able to review the constitutionality of a law that is based on religious law. The bible can be enacted as the sovereign source of law in any Federal, State, or local Municipality and the Supreme Court cannot not rule that it is a violation of the First Amendment. If passed, this is the end of the Bill of Rights.

Even further disturbing is that this bill has 34 co-sponsors (not surprisingly, all but 2 are from below the Mason-Dixon line). So ends religious freedom, and so begins the American Taliban (and no, I do not say this lightly).


Boomr said...

How is that constitutional?

Dingo said...

Well, I don't think that it really is, but with Hostetler and the Republicans passing the bill that does not allow any federal funding to enforce court rulings when it comes to court rulings on the cross of church and state, even if the courts would strike down this bill as unconstitutional, there is no enforceing it. This shit is getting scary.

Boomr said...

What kind of funding is needed to enforce court orders? I'm not sure I understand how Congress can tie the judiciary's hands, as the judiciary's the branch that gets to "say what the law is."

This manufactured, "Wag the Dog"-type of thoroughly fictional "war on Christianity" is really infuriating. The Christian right controls both houses of Congress, the Presidency, a large percentage of the federal judiciary, and an even greater percentage of local or state governments (except, oddly enough, in heavily populated areas). Where is the "war on Christianity?" Seems to me like Christians have been waging a war on the Constitution by trying to include their religious beliefs in the laws of our land, and not the other way around.

Dingo said...

Federal marshals, or any other federal employee that would be required to enforce a court order would not be allowed to do it. The law was passed in relation to the monument of the ten commandments in the Alabama court house. The law would not allow any federal employee to remove the monument even by court order.

Boomr said...

Again, I think any law requiring federal employees to violate a court order is unconstitutional. It's infringement by the legislative branch on the sole province of the judiciary.

Dingo said...

it's is some weird catch 22.