Also, an earlier bill, the “Religious Liberties Restoration Act,” S. 1558 (July 21, 2003), specifically authorizes the display of the ten commandments and other religious references and exempts such items from judicial review by the US Federal Courts.On January 6, 2004, the Yurica Report published “America Stands on the Edge of a Grave Constitutional Crisis Linked to Pat Robertson.” In that article we reported that televangelist Pat Robertson devised a number of ways of limiting the power of the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts of America.

To quote from the article, Robertson said as early as March 24, 1986, “Congress could say, ‘There’s a whole class of cases you can’t hear’ and there’s nobody can do anything about it!”

On February 11, 2004, we published “The Despoiling of America” by Katherine Yurica. To quote Robertson from this article, “God’s plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen to take dominion…to reign and rule…There’ll be a reformation….We are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. We’re not gonna stand for it. We are going to say, ‘We want freedom in this country, and we want power…’”

Both these articles reported a crisis in our government and revealed the plan of the far right Dominionists who control Congress to reconstruct our constitution and “restore” it to subservience to a theocratic religion under God and under biblical law.

It is the first step in a series of steps to take over and control the government of the United States of America as outlined in “The Despoiling of America.”

Today the Yurica Report learned that on February 11 , 2004, Dominionist leaders in congress made their move; they introduced a bill in both houses called The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004. Among the sponsors of the bill are Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

The House version is H.R. 3799 and the Senate version is S. 2082. The bill limits the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts to hear cases involving “expressions of religious faith by elected or appointed officials.”

Although the claim by its sponsors appears to be that the intention is to prevent the courts from hearing cases involving the Ten Commandments or a Nativity Scene in a public setting from being reviewed, the law is drawn broadly and expressly includes the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of executing his office.

John Giles, Alabama President of Christian Coalition said, “The greatest unbridled abuse by the federal judiciary for over forty years has been in the area of redefining the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law…We define this as judicial activism, making law from the bench. These unconstitutional rulings have gone unchecked by other branches of government.”

The following proposed law will be added to Sec. 1260 of Title 28, Chapter 81 of the U.S. Code:

“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 acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”

Because the judiciary is “an element” of the federal, state and local governments, this wording, if it becomes law, may allow any judge to institute biblical punishments without being subject to review by the Supreme Court or the federal court system. For a full description of the legal and practical implications of this bill, we have incorporated the following section from Katherine Yurica’s article, “For Whom the Bell Tolls:”

“The writings of Dominionists are filled with examples of how they intend to extend biblical law, including the death penalty to homosexuals, adulterers and heretics. The 2002 Republican Party Platform of Texas is as fine an example of unmitigated hatred as one can find anywhere for it insulates criminals and wrong doers from prosecution for even murder and hate crimes. The Texas Republican Platform is also significant because Texas is the home state of President George W. Bush. We have to assume since he didn’t object to the platform publicly, that he tacitly accepted it. It reads in part:

“Homosexuality – …We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.” (Emphasis added.)

“Texas Sodomy Statutes –”The Party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy.”

“Sodomy, it should be noted is applicable to all human sexuality, heterosexual or homosexual, including “blow jobs.” One cannot help wondering if the Texan Republicans, who oppose the decriminalization of sodomy, would arrest members of their own party.

“If we juxtapose the wording of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 to the underlined sentence in the Texas Republican Party Platform above, we have to ask whether the Dominionists in Congress are preparing a way to allow “biblical executions” and unthinkable acts of hatred to go without punishment of any kind. H.R. 3799 reads:

“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 acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.” (To be added to Sec. 1260 of Title 28, Chapter 81 of the U.S. Code and see also S. 2082.)

“I raised the question ….because the judiciary is “an element” of the federal, state and local governments, does this wording, if it becomes law, allow any judge to impose biblical punishments or to sanction biblical punishments of religious fanatics without being subject to review by the Supreme Court or the federal court system? The answer appears to be “Yes.”

“Follow me here: since a judge may assert that God is the sovereign source of law under HR 3799, may not that judge decree God’s law as stated in the Bible to be supreme over every law written by mere mortals? By definition the word “sovereign” means: “the supreme repository of power in a political state.” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). So the sentence in HR 3799 (and S. 2082) establishes the right of an individual to assert God’s sovereignty over all laws in the United States.

“If a judge can make this assertion with impunity, what prevents him, should this ill advised law pass Congress, from applying biblical law instead of the law of the state? Of course he could be struck down by the appellate courts in his state—but what if all those courts are packed with Dominionists or the legislative body can impeach any judge in the state for failure to follow God’s sovereign laws?

“Let’s take a hypothetical situation. A homosexual or an adulterer is arrested for violating the sodomy laws of Texas. Regardless of the punishment for the crime of sodomy in the statute, the Old Testament portion of the Bible establishes the death penalty. So the Dominionist appointed judge finds God to be the sovereign source of law.

“He then finds the defendant guilty as charged and issues the death penalty. All the appellate judges in the state uphold the lower court judge out of fear. If HR 3799 (or S. 2082) is passed and becomes the law, the defendant would not be able to appeal to the Supreme Court or any federal court for help because the law prohibits the Supreme Court from hearing a case decided upon the basis of [an] individual’s belief that God is the sovereign source of law.

“Americans are about to lose everything that makes America great. If you doubt my assertions about the hatred being directed against homosexuals in America, go see the web site of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). It’s named http://www.godhatesfags.com/ The church claims to “vigorously preach the five points of Calvinism.”

“The church asks you to agree that you are visiting their hellish web site of your own free will. You are required to click on the WBC’s “Enter” icon at the bottom of the page. Don’t allow your children to see this material. Prepare yourself for one of the most vile and violent exhibitions of hatred from a Baptist Church you will ever see.

There are photographs of sweet-faced young people; one of them is Matthew Shepard, who was tied to a fence and beaten to death in Wyoming. His photo is attached to a monument “dedicated to [his] entry into hell,” which the church plans to erect in the Casper City Park. There is also a photograph of Diane Whipple, the young woman who was killed by two giant dogs in San Francisco. She is shown surrounded by the flames of hell. If you stay long enough, you’ll hear the screams of the victims. The church’s web page shouts out that homosexuals will burn in hell forever. The WBC has clocks going to inform the viewer how long the victim has been suffering the torments of hell. Click here if you want this verified.

“But is hell reserved for homosexuals? Homosexuals aren’t even mentioned, but the lecherous get a hefty whack! (KJV) It’s instructive to know that according to the New Testament, hell was made for the devil and his angels. And according to the apocalyptic book of Revelations, hell will be occupied by the group God hates the most: liars and the cowardly who submit to the liars.”

In addition the proposed bill punishes sitting judges by requiring impeachment and removal, if they rely on decisions from another state or jurisdiction, such as another state’s constitution, law, administrative rule or judicial decision. The proposed Section 201, “Interpretation of the Constitution” reads:

“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.”

Because the term “foreign” is a term of art in the law and can refer to another jurisdiction within the United States, like another state or another county, the proposed law is troubling. One news talk show host in favor of the bill claims that the section is aimed directly at Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Conner and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

So important is the passage of this bill to Dominionists one of their activists said, “The passage of this bill should be regarded as the most important item on the conservative agenda this year! It is…more important than who wins the White House this November.”

In light of the reports we have published, every Senator and Congressman and all Americans should be informed of the pending Dominionist reformation of our judiciary and through it, our entire American democracy.

Katherine Yurica was educated at East Los Angeles College, U.S.C. and the USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004
108th CONGRESS, 2d Session

H. R. 3799
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 11, 2004

Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself and Mr. PENCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

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 2004′.

TITLE I–JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) 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 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.’.

(2) 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.’.

(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) 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 court 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.’.

(2) 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.’.

(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this Act.

TITLE II–INTERPRETATION

SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

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.

TITLE III–ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.

Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.

SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.

To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of–

(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.