Employs Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of the US Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court:
This same Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of the US Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court can be further applied to protect the God-ordained institution of marriage, to protect state-level laws banning acts of sodomy, to protect federal and state laws banning abortion, and to protect the freedom of religious expression that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, vis-a-vis public displays of the Ten Commandments, and public prayer in the Name of Jesus.
(Suggestion: save this report as a resource for future reference to Federal and State bills cited below)
--------------------------------------
"The U.S. House of Representatives today passed the Pledge Protection Act H.R. 2389 260 to 167. The act seeks to remove cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance from the jurisdiction of federal courts."
Focus on the Family
citizenlink.org
July 19, 2006
House Votes to Protect the Pledge
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0041325.cfm
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Pledge Protection Act of 2005
H.R.2389
Title: To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sponsor: Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] (introduced 5/17/2005) Cosponsors (197)
Related Bills: H.RES.920, S.1046
Latest Major Action: 7/19/2006 Passed/agreed to in House.
Status: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 260 - 167 (Roll no. 385).
______________________________________
______________________________________
Pledge Protection Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 2389
AN ACT
To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts overcertain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Pledge Protection Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the endthe following:
`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction
`(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation.
`(b) The limitation in subsection (a) does not apply to--
`(1) any court established by Congress under its power to make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States; or
`(2) the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals;'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.
Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2006.
---------------------------------------
You may see the full text, co-sponsors and Congressional history of HR 2389 at http://thomas.loc.gov/
--------------------------------------
Note from Columbia Christians for Life: The language above, "no court created by Act of Congress" applies to the US Federal District Courts and the US Federal Courts of Appeals. Beginning with the 1789 Federal Judiciary Act, Congress has established the lower Federal Courts (federal courts below the US supreme Court). So Congress has the power to establish or remove the very existenceof specific lower Federal Courts, let alone, define their jurisdiction for adjudication. The authority of Congress to "ordain and establish" these lower Federal Courts in contained in Article III., Section 1.of the US Constitution.
________________________________
United States Constitution, Article III., Section 2., clause [2]
www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec2
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, SC
http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/
http://www.righttolifeactofsc.net/
July 20, 2006
_________________________
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/
July 20, 2006
House votes to block lawsuits over Pledge
page 4A
The House voted Wednesday to bar federal judges from ruling in lawsuits that claim that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance amounts to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The vote was 260-167. Prospects for the legislation are uncertain in the Senate, where a similar bill hasn't been acted upon since being introduced a year ago. Even if the measure became federal law, state courts could still rule on the validity of the Pledge within a state.
Full coverage
House passes bill shielding Pledge of Allegiance from federal court rulings
www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/15078861.htm
House votes to protect Pledge of Allegiance
www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15078798.htm
_________________________________
[highlighting emphasis added]
Focus on the Family
citizenlink.org
Helping you defend the family
www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0041325.cfm
July 19, 2006
House Votes to Protect the Pledge
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
Representatives affirm the right of school kids to include "under God."
The U.S. House of Representatives today passed the Pledge Protection Act H.R. 2389 260 to 167. The act seeks to remove cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., is in response to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2002 that declared the Pledge unconstitutional because of the words "under God." The Supreme Court overturned the decision, stating that atheist Michael Newdow did not have standing to bring the case.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals banned 'under God' from the Pledge, it was out of step with the American public and the spirit of the Constitution.
"Nearly 90 percent of Americans believe 'under God' should remain in the Pledge and that students should be allowed to recite the Pledge," he said. "I am pleased to see Congress exercising its constitutional authority to check the power of the courts which have tried to strip 'God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
The Pledge Protection Act, Perkins said, will help restore the system of checks and balances intended by our Founding Fathers.
"We continue to see attempts to remove any acknowledgement of God from the public square," he said. "If the Pledge falls under the attack of liberal activists and their judicial accomplices, we can expect our nation's motto and other historical inscriptions to fall as well."
Perkins noted that the threat from crusading atheists and activist judges will not cease until the Pledge Protection Act is signed into law.
"We urge the U.S. Senate to act promptly and adopt this measure before the August recess," he said. "Our overburdened courts will be more effective when they focus on areas of genuine dispute and cease tampering with first principles on which the American people are united."
[portion omitted]
(Paid for by Focus on the Family Action.)
Copyright © 2006 Focus on the Family
All rights reserved.
International copyright secured.
(800) A-FAMILY (232-6459)
________________________________
________________________________
Other Important Applications of this Constitutional Power of Congress...
From Columbia Christians for Life director Steve Lefemine:
Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court can also be applied to issues of marriage, sodomy, abortion, displays of the Ten Commandments, and public prayer:
Passage of the Pledge Protection Act on July 19, 2006, was not the first time in recent memory that the US House of Representatives has exercised it's power under Article III., Section 2., Clause [2] of the US Constitution to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court:
The US House passed HR 3313, the Marriage Protection Act, on July 22, 2004:
The Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, was passed by the US House of Representatives on July 22, 2004 (108th Congress), to remove appellate jurisdiction from the US supreme Court, and to remove all jurisdiction (original and appellate) from the lower Federal Courts (US District Courts, and the US Courts of Appeals) vis-a-vis the Defense of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A.).
JULY 22, 2005 - Yearlong anniversary of House MPA vote to remove jurisdiction from Supreme Court on DOMA
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/CONLAW10.DOC
You may view the text, co-sponsors, and Congressional history of HR 3313 at http://thomas.loc.gov/
____________________________________
Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 3313
AN ACT
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Act of 2004'.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:
`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction
`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.'.
(b) Amendments to the Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 oftitle 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.
Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Note from Columbia Christians for Life:
The language above, "No court created by Act of Congress"applies to the US Federal District Courts and the US Federal Courts of Appeals. Beginning withthe 1789 Federal Judiciary Act, Congress has established the lower Federal Courts (federal courtsbelow the US supreme Court). So Congress has the power to establish or remove the very existenceof specific lower Federal Courts, let alone, define their jurisdiction for adjudication. The authority ofCongress to "ordain and establish" these lower Federal Courts in contained in Article III., Section 1.of the US Constitution.
________________________________________
In the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, discussed above, the US House passed legislation (unfortunately the US Senate did not even take the bill up) protecting the Defense of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A.) from the Federal Courts, in July 2004.
This same Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court can be further applied to furtherprotect the God-ordained institution of marriage, to protect state-level lawsbanning acts of sodomy, to protect federal and state laws banning abortion, and to protect the freedom of religious expression that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, vis-a-vis public display of the Ten Commandments, and public prayer in the Name of Jesus Christ.
Categories of Legislative issues addressed below:
1. PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOD
(Freedom of religious expression, public display of Ten Commandments, public prayer in the Name of Jesus Christ)
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - S.520 (US Senate) and HR 1070 (US House)
2. ABORTION
a. The Right to Life Act - HR 552 (US House)
b. State-level abortion ban bills
3. SODOMY
State-level bills banning acts of sodomy
________________________________________
1. PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOD
(Freedom of religious expression, public display of Ten Commandments, public prayer in the Name of Jesus Christ)
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - S.520 (US Senate) and HR 1070 (US House)
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
S.520
Title: A bill to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Sponsor: Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] (introduced 3/3/2005) Cosponsors (9)
Related Bills: H.R.1070
Latest Major Action: 3/3/2005 Referred to Senate committee.Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
_______________________________________
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 520
A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2005'.
TITLE I - - JURISDICTION
SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:`
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.'.
(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`1260. Matters not reviewable.'.
SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.
(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:
`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'.
(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'.
------------------------------------------
You may see the full text, co-sponsors and Congressional history of S.520 at http://thomas.loc.gov/
_________________________
The US House companion bill to US Senate bill S.520, is H.R. 1070, and is likewise called the 'Constitution Restoration Act of 2005.
'Constitution Restoration Act of 2005
H.R.1070
Title: To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Sponsor: Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] (introduced 3/3/2005) Cosponsors (48)
Related Bills: S.520
Latest Major Action: 4/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1070
A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2005'.
------------------------------------------------
You may see the full text, co-sponsors and Congressional history of HR 1070 at http://thomas.loc.gov/
_______________________________
_______________________________
2. ABORTION
a. The Right to Life Act - HR 552 (US House)
b. State-level abortion ban bills
BY THE US CONGRESS REMOVING APPELLATE JURISDICTION FROM THE US SUPREME COURT OVER THE "RIGHT TO LIFE ACT," HR 552, IN THE US HOUSE (which now has 98 co-sponsors), THIS BILL COULD BE PASSED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE IN THE US HOUSE AND THE US SENATE, AND BE PROTECTED FROM BEING OVERTURNED BY THE US SUPREME COURT. THUS THE RIGHT TO LIFE ACT WOULD BAN ALL ABORTIONS IN AMERICA.
a. The Right to Life Act - HR 552 (US House)
H.R.552
Title: To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.
Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] (introduced 2/2/2005) Cosponsors (97)
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee.
Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
________________________________________
Right to Life Act (Introduced in House)
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 552
A BILL
To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Right to Life Act'.
SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.
To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person,and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You may see the full text and co-sponsors and Congressional history of HR 552 at http://thomas.loc/
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENT BUSH and CONGRESS COULD END ABORTION IN AMERICA IN ONE WEEK
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/CONLAW08.DOC
_____________________________________
b. State-level abortion ban bills
BY THE US CONGRESS REMOVING APPELLATE JURISDICTION FROM THE US SUPREME COURT OVER STATE-LEVEL BILLS BANNING ABORTION, PRINCIPLED, STATE-LEVEL BILLS BANNING ALL ABORTIONS COULD BE PASSED BY SIMPLE MAJORITIES IN THE VARIOUS STATE LEGISLATURES; AND / OR STATE-LEVEL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS BANNING ALL ABORTIONS PASSED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS OF EACH STATE, AND THESE STATE-LEVEL LAWS AND AMENDMENTS WOULD BE PROTECTED FROM BEING OVERTURNED BY THE US SUPREME COURT. THUS STATE-LEVEL ABORTION BAN BILLS AND / OR STATE-LEVEL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS WOULD BAN ABORTIONS IN THAT STATE.
The Sixth Commandment states, "Thou shalt not kill (murder)." Exodus 20:13 (KJV)
There are no "exceptions" to God's commandment to mankind not to commit murder. The Texas state law banning most abortions that was challenged in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case had an exceptionfor the life of the mother. This exception undermined the attempt made by the State of Texas todefend its law, asserting the legal "personhood" of the unborn child.
In the very text of the Roe v. Wade US supreme Court decision it states, “[Texas] argue[s] that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment… If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [pro-abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
In other words, there never would have been legalized abortion under Roe v. Wade had fetal legal personhood been established by the State of Texas. But tragically, Texas had an “exception” which undermined their entire “personhood” argument. [Pro-abortion] Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: “[ Footnote 54 ] When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists… But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command? ...”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
In the 2005-2006 Legislative year, numerous state-level bills have been filedbanning all or most abortions. To date, only the South Dakota bill has passed and been signed into law, and it has a life of the mother exception.
11 State bills in 2005/2006 banning abortions:
- ALA, GA, IND, KY, LA, MO, ND, OH, SC, SD, TENN (over 20% of States in U.S.)
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/H3213-S111-121.doc
___________________________________
3. SODOMY
State-level bills banning acts of sodomy
THIS SAME STRATEGY CAN BE EMPLOYED BOTH TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE FROM SODOMITES.
BY THE US CONGRESS REMOVING APPELLATE JURISDICTION FROM THE US SUPREME COURT OVER THE ANTI-SODOMY OF LAWS OF STATES, ACTS OF SODOMY CAN REMAIN THE ABOMINABLE CRIMINAL ACTS THAT THEY ARE, SUCH AS IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA S.C. CODE OF LAWS.
IF ACTS OF SODOMY REMAIN CRIMINAL ACTS, THEN SODOMITE "COUPLING" IS A MOOT ISSUE.
The moral Law of God states, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
Example from the South Carolina Code of Laws:
http://www.scstatehouse.net/
(note: "buggery" is the same as sodomy)
Title 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
Chapter 15. OFFENSES AGAINST MORALITY AND DECENCY
SECTION 16-15-120. Buggery. [SC ST SEC 16-15-120]
Whoever shall commit the abominable crime of buggery, whether with mankind or with beast, shall, on conviction, be guilty of felony and shall be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for five years or shall pay a fine of not less than five hundred dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court.
_______________________________________
For further information, contact:
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, SC
Ph. (803) 765-0916
E-mail - CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/
http://www.righttolifeactofsc.net/
___________________________________
Please help Columbia Christians for Life to be able to continue to inform, educate, and publicize to Christians, pro-lifers, legislators, the media, and others, about the various Federal and State-level legal strategies that are available, possible, and achievable for banning decriminalized abortionand sodomy in America, by posting and publicizing these reports.
Thank you.
To donate to Columbia Christians for Life:
Two methods -
1. Go to http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/ and click on 'Support' for CCL ministry support information.
2. Or, if you are a PayPal member (http://www.paypal.com/), you may also send CCL ministry donations to: CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
No comments:
Post a Comment