US Congress denies legitimacy of US Courts

Striking another blow for fascism, on March 3, 2005 the US Congress introduced a bill seeking to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts over congress.

Yes, that’s right. Our elected representatives are attempting to tie the hands of the judiciary so it can’t stop Congress from raiding the cookie jar.

Specific provisions of this bill, which is still in committee, (but you can bet your last dollar will appear either by itself or added as a rider to a much more popular bill within the next year):

• Section 101(a): The Supreme Court would be forbidden from reviewing any case involving a lawsuit against any governmental body or employee, whether or not that person or institution was acting in an official capacity.
• 102(a): The same restriction will apply to district courts.
• 201: In reviewing the constitutionality of legislation, the court is specifically forbidden from considering international law in their judgment. They cannot also consider any non-US laws other than English Law prior to the Constitution. The chief concern to me with this provision is that it means that human rights agreements, peace treaties, and other agreements to keep peace with our neighbors can’t be considered in any judgment. Hello, war with Mexico. Again. Last time it was over territory; this time, it will almost certainly be over immigration.
• 301: Any previous judgment which would be disallowed under these changes would be invalidated. What does this mean in practice? Every single ruling ever made by the High Court which involved a practice of government is now up-for-grabs. Don’t like Roe V. Wade? Now you can go back and challenge it. And the best part? The High Court’s not alowed to hear your challenge, so it passes unopposed! Hooray for Fascism! (OK, I overstated this: previous invalidated judgments would be remanded back to State Courts. So now, hooray for inconsistent application of the law! Welcome back, state-approved segregation, coat-hanger abortions, and separationist dogma!)
• Now, the icing on the cake: Section 302. In summary, it states that if a judge opposes this law and declares it unconstitutional, or agrees to rule on something prohibited by this law, she’s guilty of treasonous action (violation of constitutional oath) and can be forcibly removed from office or incarcerated!

This is one of those bills which I hope will die in committee, yet like the DMCA and PATRIOT act, I’m certain someone will find a way to pass it. At the very least, it serves one useful purpose: it tells me who the enemies of democracy and freedom in our House of Representatives are, as listed in the introduction:

Mr. Aderholt (for himself, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Pence, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Everett, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Souder, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Herger, Mr. Goode, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Lewis of Kentucky) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

I think it is no accident which states are represented by those introducing this bill: Viginia, Kansas, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Utah, Kentucky. What I think I may be seeing here is the new axis of the Confederacy, attempting to find another way to secede from the Union and carry on the bigoted, Anglo-centric practices which were squashed in 1865.

Who knows? I could be wrong, and I probably am. But seeing the name of my elected representative affixed to this ridiculous attempted usurpation of the separation of powers makes me angry. And when I get angry, I get stupid and go out and do stuff like set up promotional web sites and carry on grass-roots campaigns…

OK, no, actually, I’ve never done that kind of stuff. But seeing this latest attack on the Constitution makes me wanna. Badly.

Text of the bill here. However, this particular link may expire in time.