Raving Conservative

Google

Thursday, February 16, 2006

My Proposal for a Litigation Law

1. Any lawsuit challenging a law passed in legislature must be challenged on Constitutional grounds by the specific section of the Constitution is allegedly violates. Before the court may hear the case it must be decided that said portion of the Constitution directly affects the law that is challenged. Only the letter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights may be used as qualifying criteria.


This law should stifle frivolous and expensive lawsuits challenging laws restricting behavior that has no specific protection as named under the Constitution of the United States, and any state Constitution as well.
This law would be a stealth killer of any litigation seeking to legalize such behaviors as unlimited abortion on demand, gay marriage, pedophilia, and uncounted other people with plenty of money for a lawyer or team of lawyers who want to reshape America in the image of Sodom and Gomorrah, or ancient Rome. It would also squash every “separation of church and state” argument since this phrasing appears nowhere at all in our founding documents.

Cool huh?

24 Comments:

  • That’s a great idea, Daniel. Then all we have to do is pass a law making gay marriage legal and you will be unable to challenge it.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 11:59 AM  

  • And there's no questioning the legality of Bush's spying under this policy; it is without a doubt illegal.

    By Blogger Son of Lilith, at 1:44 PM  

  • That law may play havoc on those interested in protecting the right of a militia to keep and bear arms, once it is shown that "Daniel," for instance, is not part of any militia.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 8:48 PM  

  • Except that it would be ruled unconstitutional as soon as it passed. It would have to be an amendment.

    By Anonymous rightwingprof, at 5:56 AM  

  • Guess he didn't think that one through very well. Another example of over-simplified thinking. With us or Against us, Us and Them, Good and Evil... It's always so simple. Why can't you people just see how simple it really is? I'm sure the 15 year olds will "totally" agree with Daniel's post though. I mean, come on, it's so obvious.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:40 AM  

  • Interesting comments everybody.

    Th eintention of this proposal is imply to protect the will of the people and power of the legislature from a cultural minority entrenched in the US court system. Being no fan of looese interpertetaions of the Constitution it seems like a plain sense solution to me.

    Th enly thing I'm really wondering about right now is exactlt what the anonomys commentor was thinking of when he made his comment. I would know the logic behind behind such derisiveness.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:57 AM  

  • This law should stifle frivolous and expensive lawsuits challenging laws restricting behavior that has no specific protection as named under the Constitution of the United States, and any state Constitution as well.

    This law would be struck down as Unconstitutional, Daniel. It violates the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    Mandating a certain religious view or practice in a public institution, such as forcing prayer in public schools, violates the First Amendment. Further, many of the Founders, including Jefferson, Jay, Adams, Madison and Paine, were adamant in their writings that the church and state remain separate. Theocracy is not a good form of government, even if you believe yours is the "One True Faith".

    All you're advocating for here is what federal judges already do. You can disagree all you want with how a given judge interprets the Constitution, of course. It was written vaguely for a reason.

    This would also make the Air Force unconstitutional, by the way.

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 10:40 AM  

  • Sam,

    This is a law limiting litigation where where legislation has been passed. It would have ZERO effect on the existence of the military, and it does not mandate any religious anything.

    It DOES protect the power of the legislature against activist courts that have an "evolutionary" view of the meaning of the Constitution.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 11:06 AM  

  • Daniel said,
    It would also squash every “separation of church and state” argument since this phrasing appears nowhere at all in our founding documents.
    and then Daniel said,
    ...and it does not mandate any religious anything.

    2 + 2 = dog, apparently.

    Daniel -

    What is your ideal role of religion in American politics? What should it be doing now that it currently is not? I have no idea or sense of where you want the church positioned in America, only a scary notion of a theocracy (but we all know those don't work, right?). Please, please, please, explain. I get the sense that you are more motivated by religion on this issue than anything else, and therefore I believe we need to know what your future idea of America is like with a more politically powerful church involved.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:40 PM  

  • What a great question! Tricky, but great.

    Do you mind if I answer that in addition to Daniel - to get maybe two perspectives on church and state (or maybe one perspective, we'll see).

    I, as a church-goer, would like to see:
    1. Christians able to run for office right along with everyone else (we currently can do so).
    2. Churches probably should have to pay taxes, right along with everyone else (although I'm less sure on that one...)
    3. Groups that are actually helping in one way or the other (beyond spiritually helping) probably should be able to retain tax-exempt status.
    4. As a christian, I do NOT want state-sponsored prayers in schools or gov't institutions (why would I want someone who doesn't share my beliefs saying a prayer to a god that I don't believe in?)
    5. Or, conversely, if we do have public prayers, I'd want to rotate them between various denominations/faith systems (but do you really want me praying before the congressional session starts saying "God forgive us for our commercialistic and war-mongering ways"?).
    6. I'd want anyone to still have the right to pray in school or anywhere else (a right we currently have - "as long as there are tests in schools, there will be prayer in schools")

    How's that for starters?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 3:24 PM  

  • Dan T,

    1. Christians able to run for office right along with everyone else (we currently can do so).

    This is rich. Christians already have the upper hand here. Can you imagine an atheist being elected to office in the current climate?

    2. Churches probably should have to pay taxes, right along with everyone else (although I'm less sure on that one...)
    3. Groups that are actually helping in one way or the other (beyond spiritually helping) probably should be able to retain tax-exempt status.


    If they make a profit and distribute it amongst themselves, they should pay taxes. If they give any profit they make back to the wider community in some way then I think it is fair for them to maintain tax exemption.

    4. As a christian, I do NOT want state-sponsored prayers in schools or gov't institutions (why would I want someone who doesn't share my beliefs saying a prayer to a god that I don't believe in?)

    Now you know what atheists have to put up with. Wouldn’t it be simpler if the Government just remained neutral and there were no state-sponsored prayers? Then no one is forced to listen to people praying to non-existent Gods.

    5. Or, conversely, if we do have public prayers, I'd want to rotate them between various denominations/faith systems...

    And what of atheists? Actually, I think most people would look forward to Atheist Day. At least then they wouldn’t be forced to listen to someone praying to a God they don’t believe in. It would be rather a relief to just get on with your life for a day without some religious mumbo-jumbo being forced down your throat.

    6. I'd want anyone to still have the right to pray in school or anywhere else (a right we currently have - "as long as there are tests in schools, there will be prayer in schools")

    Fine, as long as you don’t force others to listen to it.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 6:20 PM  

  • I have a different perspective than Dan T on th erole of religion in our government.

    Historically speaking, the modern definition of seperation and church and state is utterly innacurate. State sponsored religion was defined as state MANDATED religion, where only 1 or a few specific religions were legal. The idea that religion must be invisible is nothing more thanan perversion of the First Amendment brought about by a minority of people who hate religion and want to see it forced into the far corners of society where they can pretend it does not exist.

    My interest in crushing this this trend is primarily historical, bu tthere is some degree of religiosity involved. But let me provide you with a few examples of whet would need to be done to our public historical documents ad monuments if this trend is not squashed.

    1- The Bill Of Rights would have to have the words "created and creator" blacked out right here at the very beginning.

    2- The Constitution would have to have the line "In the year of Our Lord" blacked out from the date header.

    3- The capstone on the Washington Monument would have to be replaced due to the fact that it contains various Bible verses and Christian sayings.

    4- The Lincoln Memoriaal would have to be renovated to strip Bible verses and references from the walls.

    5- Every tombstone bearing, or in the shape of a religious symbol in a national cemetary would ned to be replaced.

    6- The Us Supreme Court building would need to remodeled t remove multiple images of the Ten Commandments thet were carved into it when it was built.

    7- The national Cthedral, originally intended as an American Christian Cathedral to rival those of Europe has already beeb redesinated the national "all faiths" cathedral, however, this is not enough and all of the religious imagery would have to be stripped from it, and some Atheists would see it turned into a museum or something rather than being left as a cathedral.

    8- Public employess would be banned from their private freedom of speech and religious practice by being banned from wearing or even possessing religious items at work.

    9- Historical documents from the Congress and Presidential speeches, to include ALL inagural addresses (with the possible exception of 1 or 2) would need to have references to God stricken from them.

    10- Every State Contitution would have to have at least one reference to God stricken from it.

    I could continue for a very long time, but I will stop here.

    Religion (Christianity and Judaism)is already tied to every facet of American government. Many of us believe it is THE reason our country has been so successful. Now compare the religious US with the Atheistic France. The uS is RIcher per capita, has a far lower unemployment rate, better health care, more peaceful (internally), and we are far more powerful in every way. Also if you follo wEuropean trends at all, you see that the fortunes of Europe have declined as it has become staedily less religious until it became, what people consider, anti-religious. That hole in European society appears to be being filled now by Muslims, and look at all the trouble they are causing over there.

    We don't need a theocracy, that would be very bad, as history shows us, but I DO want our religios traditions left alone by hostile person and othe organizations that speak for them.

    However, there are far more than religious connotations to this law. It protects the will of teh people by protecting the power of teh legislature on many topics.

    Marriage, for example, could not be redifined by the courts. The states could legislate a change if the peole elect representatives who want to allow various alternative forms of marriage, but it would be because of the will of the people, not a few activist judges, and the marriage laws that are passed would not be able to have their constitutionality challenged.

    Abortion could not be a "right" according to the courts because there nothing regarding it in the Constitution. Roe V Wade woould be invalidated and the power todecide on this topic would return to the states, and their elected representatives.

    Power to the people, not to the courts. Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who warned us about the possibility and tragedy of the courts usurping power in the us and creating a Tyrrany of the Judiciary? Many peopel, myself included, percieve this as occuring right now and want it ended immediately.

    Does this answer your questions?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:26 AM  

  • Oh man, I love how you use the phrases "abortion on demand, gay marriage and paedophilia" in the same sentence!

    Does everyone want an abortion? Is it like TV On Demand? And gay marriage and paedophilia are polar opposites of concepts. One is about social justice and equality and the other is sickening child abuse by people who should be castrated.

    I am glad I live in a sensible country!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 11:21 AM  

  • Daniel, forgive my thick-headedness, but could you maybe sum up what you would like to see done differently than is currently happening (ie, what is your ideal role of religion in the US gov't)? I didn't quite follow all of what you said.

    I heard you say:
    1. That marriage wouldn't be redefined to include gay marriage (which hasn't happened yet) and,
    2. That abortions would be outlawed

    Are those the main one or two things that ought to happen that aren't currently happening? If so, then are you saying that basically you think our current situation is nearly ideal from your christian point of view?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 1:38 PM  

  • You guys seem to miss the poin of this post. It is about protecting the voice of the majority who are being represented by their congressmen, Sanators, President, Governors, and local representatives. Right now the courts are surpassing their authority and imposing personal views that have nothing to do withthe Constitution on an unwilling majority of US citezens. Religion is one aspect, but it is only one. Marrieage is another, one the ocutrts have no business redefining. Abortion, the same. What can be taught in schools is another. All of these things are the responsibility of elected representatives, but that power and representation is being stripped away by activist judges who are overstepping their authority and should be impeached.

    I could list many other examples of "Constituional" rights and priviledges,and restrictions that have nothing to with anything that can be found in th eConstitution, bill of rights, or even reasonably inferred from the Declaration of Independencd. It is this that I am seeking to end. I am not seeking to expand religious influence through legislation. Apparently using court mposes restrictios on religion as an example gave some overly sensitive people the impression that I want a theocracy. Get over it. Look at the real, and greater principle that is being addressed, and quit trying to distract from the subject.

    Once again, so there can be NO further confusion:

    THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND THROUGH THAT THE VOICE OF THE VOTING PUBLIC!

    Verstanze?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 3:05 PM  

  • Daniel -
    Have you considered becoming a professional dodgeball player? I think you would KILL. Heck, I would probably help you find sponsors.
    You see, we all know what the major point of your original post was, to tell us that the majority should have its way, and thank God you're a member of the majority. We get it. We really truly do.
    However, we minority members would just like to find out what America will be like once you have stripped away all of the barriers that protect us from your (meaning the majorities) every little whim.

    On a side note, you said:
    Religion (Christianity and Judaism)is already tied to every facet of American government.
    Every? Seriously, you believe EVERY aspect of our government is provided in part by Christianity and Judaism?
    You then said,
    Many of us believe it is THE reason our country has been so successful.
    Nothing to do with the vast resources of a newly discovered land and the power of capitalism? It was God that made us great?
    I would say there are hundreds of reasons why, so far, we are successful. You are stating that your religion is THE reason. Investigate this more closely.

    You continue:
    Now compare the religious US with the Atheistic France. The uS is RIcher per capita, has a far lower unemployment rate, better health care, more peaceful (internally), and we are far more powerful in every way.
    Now, like the previous statement, you are simplifying things too much. Is this the ONLY reason we are more successful in some ways? If Europe is better at something, then we give the credit to Atheism? Do you see the problem here?

    Also if you follo wEuropean trends at all, you see that the fortunes of Europe have declined as it has become staedily less religious until it became, what people consider, anti-religious. That hole in European society appears to be being filled now by Muslims, and look at all the trouble they are causing over there.

    So, does this mean Atheism won't get the credit for Europe's success in its numerous ventures, it will instead go to Muslims?

    Daniel, I think your worldview is too simplistic, but works well for your regular audience. It is easy to point at something and say that it is the reason. However, usually you are wrong. Usually there are multiple reasons that extend beyond what a single post can encompass. It might require volumes to even scratch the surface of any political or social situation.
    To avoid this problem, steer away from absolutes and generalizations. I think they work on your regular audience because it just "feels" right to them. I'm sure many of them will stand beside you and say, "I totally agree with what you just said!", and maybe that's all the validation you need. Intellectually, it's just plain dishonest though.

    Wow, this sure was a long side note. Sorry!

    p.s. Don't get sidetracked by the side note, please attempt to answer the first part (not the dodgeball question). It is important to me and I think to others here as well.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:34 PM  

  • Humor someone's query on an off topic and look at the direction things take. The subject of the actual post has been lost in the debate simply because I answered a question as to what I thought the role of religion in the government is. Not the topic of the POST, and yat I allowed the debate to get sidetracked, and it looks like it wants to stay that way.

    I will respond further on this post only to on-topic debate and queries in order to prevent further confusing of the issues by persons obsessed with religion.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:10 PM  

  • Great post, Daniel.

    On topic, is this federal or a state law?

    By Blogger The Conservative UAW Guy, at 6:15 AM  

  • Actually, I don't agree with Daniel totally, Anonymous. It wouldn't be a bad idea if the Constitution and Bill of Rights could be taken as they were written. But the Constitution can be twisted to "support" anything, even something that wasn't there. If abortion rights can be found from a "right to privacy", then anything can be, and if Liberal judges are in there, any lawsuit challenging, say, Roe v. Wade would be thrown out. It would all hinge on the Judges' interpretation of the Constitution, which, obviously can be shaky.

    By Blogger Rebekah, at 7:33 AM  

  • CUG,

    Federal, of course, if it could ever get passed.

    Rebekah,

    You have a point, that why inserted wording requiring a literalist translatuion of the words of teh Constitution, but I'm sure there is some slick lawyer out there who can find wriggle room anyway.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:30 AM  

  • Let me make sure I'm understanding your post along with your comments....You suggest that challenging a law with a lawsuit will require a mention of a section of the Constitution against it. In essence limiting legislature lawsuits to laws that can conclusively shown to violate the Constitution, in theory to protect representative laws from being assaulted by the wealthy few?

    By Anonymous randy, at 10:28 AM  

  • Daniel -

    Nevermind. I wouldn't want to tell us what your version of America would be like either. Thanks Dan Trabue for answering the question that others here are incapable of handling.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:26 AM  

  • Randy,

    Yes, but with one additional thing. It would have to pass prescreening by a dedicated judge to determine if the clause mentioned even applies at all according to what is written.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:05 PM  

  • Daniel,

    Now that this post died out after your snarky attitude, mind answering the question? Or how about starting another post and answering the question? How about starting a new blog that answers the question? Or maybe a pamphlet that answers it? I think we'd settle for a tract that happens to maybe answer it. What do you say?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares