Congress has lost its mind...

[richlevy]

I looked at the proposed act as well as the relevant part of the Constitution. I don't get it. The Constitution seems clear about what the court can get involved in and nowhere is there any part that could even be stretched to insinuate that Congress can veto the court.

Of course, since the law affects the court, maybe they hope the entire court will recuse itself and G.W.B. can cast the deciding vote.

This is mindless grandstanding for the rabid fundies who are pissed off about church-state separation and the "I'm not really a racist" bigots who never got over desegregation.



The act states:

SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.

This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.

The passage of the Constitution cited is:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


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.


The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

[wolf]

The Christians wanting to move to South Carolina and take over is not that new an idea. The Free State Project wants people to move to New Hampshire to turn it into a constitutional republic.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by wolf
The Christians wanting to move to South Carolina and take over is not that new an idea. The Free State Project wants people to move to New Hampshire to turn it into a constitutional republic.

I rather like the idea of a xtian state. It gets them all in one place.

Follow that with a little "strategic" bombing and...

[OnyxCougar]

The insanity continues.....



http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdqu...:@@@L&summ2=m&

[Beestie]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

The insanity continues.....

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdqu...:@@@L&summ2=m&

The sponsors of that bill are some of the biggest dumbasses America has to offer.

[Happy Monkey]

Note that that's from Feb. 2003, and was primarily a comment on the chickenhawk mentality.

[Undertoad]

That's right, sponsoring a bill to nothing less than re-enacting the draft... simply to make a political point. Beestie's point holds.

[OnyxCougar]

Well, I wrote a letter to my Representative and both Senators. (My senators are Elizabeth Dole and John Edwards). I'm sure it won't make a difference, but as least I can say I made an effort. I wrote about the draft bills and the "fuck the constitution" bill.

[slang]

Originally posted by wolf
........to keep them from screwing up the family business.

LMAO So obviously true I'm sorry I didnt see it myself.

[OnyxCougar]

Member how I wrote to my congressman? This is the reply from Senator John Edwards.....

Dear (OC):

Thank you for contacting me about the draft, or the Selective Service. I appreciate hearing from you.

Legal authority for the involuntary induction of men into the Armed Forces expired on July 1, 1973. New legislation would be required to reinstate an active draft. Currently, the Selective Service System operates on standby status. Young men are required to register with the System within 30 days before or after their 18th birthday. If the draft were to be reactivated, young men age 18 through 26 would be subject to induction (up to age 35 if deferred when initially called). Student deferments were drastically restricted by law after they caused so much controversy during the Vietnam War of 1964-1973. Graduate student deferments were in fact abolished early in the Vietnam War, in 1966. Under current law, undergraduates who were drafted would be allowed to finish an ongoing academic semester (or their senior year, if about to graduate), and would then have to report for induction. Married men would not be exempt from any actual draft.

At the present time, it appears unlikely that the U.S. will reinstate the draft to meet its manpower needs. The military is meeting its recruiting and retention goals at the present time, and it has a large pool of trained personnel in the reserves that it can draw on to augment its active forces.

Should legislation come before the Senate that would reinstate the draft, I would carefully consider the circumstances and ultimately make a choice that was based on the best interest of our nation's security. In the meantime, I welcome any thoughts you may have on the matter.

Again, thank you for your correspondence. Please keep in touch.

Yours sincerely,

John Edwards
United States Senate

[Clodfobble]

How very efficient of him, to have a form letter response that works both for people who oppose AND support the draft.

[Undertoad]

Or who are even just looking for information about it

[phillybilly]

Originally posted by Beestie
Check out the latest bill from the buffoons in Congress and take it to its logical conclusion then find a rock to hide under

Congress wishes to confer upon itself the power to overturn Supreme Court decisions that render acts of Congress unconstitutional.

This can't be happening.

Come on, with dubya running the country, is this a surrpise AT ALL!!

This is the same man that after a drunken binge (AT THE AGE OF 40 MIND YOU!!!) had a vision that Jesus told him he should run the country...YEAH that's the straight jacket candidate that was voted in!

So his cronies in the house and senate, WHATEVER they do, doesn't surprise me ONE BIT...

Oh by the way, senate bill 89....house bill 163 are trying to re-institute the draft by June 2005...

It basically is.......


'There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services'.


Yeah so ANYTHING that this current regime puts out of it's foul mouth, YEAH that suprises me!!




Later

[glatt]

Originally posted by Clodfobble
How very efficient of him, to have a form letter response that works both for people who oppose AND support the draft.

You and UT are acting like people who have never written to their congress critter before.

[Fletch]It's all form letters these days.[/Fletch]

[Clodfobble]

It's true, the only letters I've sent my congressman are form letters. I should make them ambivalent too:


Dear Congressman So-and-So,

Thank you for attending legal sessions to represent me. I appreciate seeing you on C-SPAN.

During the upcoming session, several issues are slated for debate which I care deeply about. When the time comes, I trust that you will give serious thought to these issues, carefully consider the circumstances and ultimately make a choice that's in the best interest of our nation.

Again, thank you for your representation, and be assured I will keep in touch.

Sincerely, Loyal Voter