Worst thing ever.

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Worst thing ever.

Post by Username17 »

H.R. 3799


It's a real bill before the House of Representitives Judiciary Committee. It's not a joke, unfortunately.

Here's the fun part:

`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.'.


Translation: if a police officer decides to get jiggy on his spare time and burn the homes of suspected witches - then if your house got burned down the courts are powerless to give you any form of redress.

And if that wasn't crazy enough, it's possible that the later provisions of this bill get even scarier:

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.


Translation: treaties, including formal agreements with Native American Peoples, as well as with foreign powers, are unenforcable in court. All of them. Our extradition agreements with Canada down to our promises to punish American citizens for firing grenades over the Mexican border.

If this passes, we don't even formally own Alaska any more. We are just a military occupant. But that's OK, because militarily occupying stuff isn't against the law any more (or at least, isn't enforcable as such in court).

There are seriously Nuremburg Provisions that I would rather see passed.

-Username17
User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Worst thing ever.

Post by fbmf »

If how you are interpreting this is correct, that is pretty fugged up.

:wtf:

Game On,
fbmf
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Worst thing ever.

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

It doesn't matter if it's correct or not, the federal government is fulled with actual rules-lawyers that make Frank look like Mr. Oblivious.

they will use and abuse any laws to their best advantage.

If the law CAN be interpreted a certain way, it WILL be to suit those in power.

I would think they wouldn't pass it, but I also didn't think that they could p[ass a bill allowing employers to not pay overtime until 60 hours have been worked in a week, but Bush threw it on as a rider to the budget, and it got passed.

Most of the "Patriot" acts were passed in that manner to, because they know damn well that the public wouln't support it unless they snuck it in, piece by piece.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
The_Hanged_Man
Knight-Baron
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Worst thing ever.

Post by The_Hanged_Man »

Stupid Congress. That's all sorts of wrong.

But it actually does less than it seems. It would only prohibit the Court from having jurisdiction over an action based solely on somebody saying law comes from God. Or Bujja the Evil Emporer of the Dark Planes. Or whatever.
The whole purpose of the statute is to keep "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance. If someone commits a wrong other than that, the Court still has jurisdiciton.

For instance, if Bush burned down a house of Satan-worshippers and said he did it b/c God is the sole source of legal authority, the Court would still have jurisdiction over the claim. It just couldn't consider whether any harm or violation occured from teh "God is the sole source of Authority" aspect.

It's still stupid. Congress can't tell the Court when it does and does not have jurisdiction. The Court tells Congress when it does and does not have jurisdiction.

And there aren't any rules-lawyers in the Fed that can hold a candle to Frank.

Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Worst thing ever.

Post by Username17 »

For instance, if Bush burned down a house of Satan-worshippers and said he did it b/c God is the sole source of legal authority, the Court would still have jurisdiction over the claim. It just couldn't consider whether any harm or violation occured from teh "God is the sole source of Authority" aspect.


Actually, if a judge even attempts to hear a case in which Bush burned down someone's house because God is the sole source of legal authority - that judge would be subject to immediate impeachment.

It's about the whole case, not the sub-sections. So any government authority can announce that any action is being done because of their faith in "God", and then the case becomes unreviewable by the courts. Anything that a government official does can be transformed into an accomplished fact by saying "God told me to do it!"

-Username17
The_Hanged_Man
Knight-Baron
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Worst thing ever.

Post by The_Hanged_Man »

Read the text again.
any matter [b wrote:to the extent[/b] that relief is sought . . . by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source . . . . ]


The only jurisdictional bar is over granting relief b/c somebody acknolwedged god as a sovereigh source. The Court still has jurisdiction over claims based on other violations. The Court just lacks jurisdiction over the case to the extent that relief depends on an acknowledgement of God as the soveriegn source of law, etc.

Still stuuuuupid. The statute is unconstitutional on its face, and doesn't really do anything. Any claim based on a govt. guy saying "God is the sole source of law," could easily be recharacterized as something else. Violation of establishment clause comes to mind.

This is pure electioneering by the Right. It accomplishes nothing, but makes it look like they're all in favor of God, country, and motherhood.
Mole_2
1st Level
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Worst thing ever.

Post by Mole_2 »

FrankTrollman wrote:

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.'.


Translation: if a police officer decides to get jiggy on his spare time and burn the homes of suspected witches - then if your house got burned down the courts are powerless to give you any form of redress.

-Username17


By my reading it means you cannot get compensation from the state (or its official representatives) for religiously motivated acts.

So you could not sue the Sheriff for burning down your house, but you could still sue Bubba (who happens to be Sheriff).
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Worst thing ever.

Post by Username17 »

So you could not sue the Sheriff for burning down your house, but you could still sue Bubba (who happens to be Sheriff).


I don't think you can, you can't get redress from someone who is the Sheriff whether or not they are acting in an official capacity. So Bubba is still off limits, because despite the fact that he is not acting in an official capacity - he still is the Sheriff.

You may be able to wait until Bubba retires and then sue him as Bubba - as by that point he is no longer an official of the government and no longer protected. There's no expiration date on civil suits that I know of - so if you hang in there long enough you may be able to get compensation from a bitter old man.

-Username17
The_Hanged_Man
Knight-Baron
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Worst thing ever.

Post by The_Hanged_Man »

Generally, you can't recover from Bubba for constitutional claims if you can't recover from the entity that employs Bubba, and vice versa. But like everything in law, "it depends." Half of law school is learning how to say "it depends."

D&D would be a lot better if, instead of making weird rulings based on houserules or breakfast or whatever, Skip and others would just say "it depends" on some of the close calls and leave it up to the DM. Works for Wish.
Post Reply