Holy crap! Congress is once again attempting to take control of the government in what I would consider an unprecedented attempt to remove the ability for the judicial branch to do anything that Congress disagrees with. I first reported to you the bill that would allow Congress to override court decisions which affected acts of Congress. That was bad enough. But out of the House (and Senate!) comes H.R. 3799, "The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004." Don't be fooled; the title means "take powers away from the so-called activist judges and allow partisan politics to delve into the judiciary so that whatever party runs Congress will run the judiciary and then destroy the country" Act of 2004.

The bill prohibits the Supreme Court from reviewing any matter where 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." Okay, that effectively takes care of the Ninth Circuit Court's case from two years ago when they ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.

Next: "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." Okay, so past Supreme Court decisions are out (this is the doctrine of "precedent," which is, ironically, the foundation of English common law). All Supreme Court case law is out the door, which means that the doctrine of judicial review (established by the case Marbury v. Madison) is out the door, too: the courts are powerless to stop Congress.

What about the "activist judges"? They're gone; if they attempt to circumvent Congress by citing prior case law, that constitutes "an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution." This bill effectively neuters the courts and gives Congress full reign to do whatever it pleases.

But this isn't the first time that Congress has tried to reign in the judiciary:

Marshall's decision regarding Marbury spurred the Jeffersonians to seek revenge. Jefferson urged the impeachment of an arrogant and tart-tongued Supreme Court justice, Samuel Chase, who was so unpopular that Republicans named vicious dogs after him. Early in 1804 impeachment charges against Chase were voted by the House of Representatives, which then passed the question of guilt or innocence on to the Senate. The indictment by the House was based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," as specified in the Constitution. Yet the evidence was plain that the intemperate judge had not been guilty of "high crimes" but only of unrestrained partisanship and a big mouth. The Senate failed to muster enough votes to convict and remove Chase. The precedent thus established was fortunate. From that day to this, no really serious attempt has been made to reshape the Supreme Court by the impeachment weapon. Jefferson's ill-advised attempt at "judge-breaking" was a reassuring victory for the independence of the judiciary and for the separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government. (Thomas A. Bailey, et al., The American Pageant, 11th ed. [Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1998], p. 217.)

Until now. Brown v. Board of Education was called "activist" in its day. Imagine if this particular law had been passed in 1955. Where would the civil rights movement be? And what's all this talk about Republicans caring about individual liberties and states' rights? It's been washed down the sink by the most vile partisan politics I've ever seen in an attept to completely circumvent the Constitution and do exactly what the Constitution was designed to forbid: unpopular ideas being squelched by a majority. Fortunately, the names attached to this bill aren't big ones, so this bill will probably die a quiet death once the judiciary committees stop laughing themselves silly about it. But still -- these people write this stuff in the name of democracy. Imagine what they would do in the name of tyranny!

(I first saw information about this bill on the website ConservativePetitions.com, which looks like it's run by a bunch of extremist loonies, anyway. Take a look at some of their petitions. Go on! I dare you!)