This was in my email box this evening from Mr. Karl Schwarz (www.karlschwarz.com
). You will remember he is the Nanotechnologies CEO who wrote the excellent Demand Letter to Bush just before the debates...
This message concerns the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, which I know nothing about...please read the entire message.
Subject: Please take urgent and national action of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 and the House Subcommittee on Select Education unanimously approved H.R. 3077 WHICH ASSAULT THE CONSTITUTION!
Have the NEO CONS LOST THEIR MINDS! or do they actually consider the Democratic Party and American people so weakened by this election that they are willing to CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION! DO NOT LET THEIR IGNORANCE PREVAIL. FIGHT...tell the American people WHY WE ARE A SECULAR NATION...THIS IS A MOVE TO SOLIDIFY THE NEO-CON FASCIST REGIME! PLEASE ACT...NOW!
Please take urgent and national action of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 and the House Subcommittee on Select Education unanimously approved H.R. 3077, the International Studies in Higher Education Act whose purpose is to silence ANY CRITICISM OF Israel! These are frightening and dangerous assaults on our Constitution! The Senators who sponsored such evil bills should be facing charges for acts of sedition and treason! PLEASE ACT NOW TO SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY!
Has our country grown so sick that you the Republican party is participating in destroying our Republic! These seditious Neo-Cons SCARE ME TO DEATH as they have no limits in destroying our country economically, politically or socially. Please find the courage to fight this growing and powerful regime!
L.C. Wade, MS/CIS
Oklahoma City OK 73110
S 2082 IS
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 12, 2004
Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. MILLER, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. ALLARD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
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'.
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.
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 English constitutional and common law.
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.
Subject: FW: New Bill in Congress Targets Teachers who dare question US
support for Israel
Gory-glory, halleluyah: Judeofascism on the march !
New Bill in Congress Targets Teachers
Who Dare To Question US Support For Israel
By Michael Collins Piper
American Free Press
> The Israeli lobby has launched an all-out drive to ensure
> congressional passage of a bill, approved by the House and now before
> a Senate committee that would set up a federal tribunal to
> investigate and monitor criticism of Israel on American college
> Ten months ago the New York-based Jewish Week newspaper claimed that
> the report by American Free Press that Republican members of the
> Senate were planning to crack down on college and university
> professors who were critical of Israel was "a dangerous urban legend
> at best, deliberate disinformation at worst." They were claiming that
> AFP lied.
> However, on Sept. 17, 2003, the House Subcommittee on Select
> Education unanimously approved H.R. 3077, the International Studies
> in Higher Education Act, which was then passed by the full House on
> Oct. 21. The chief sponsor of the legislation was Rep. Peter
> Hoekstra, a conservative Republican from Michigan.
> Critics charge that the bill is dangerous-a direct affront to the
> First Amendment and the product of intrigue by a small clique of
> individuals and organizations which combines the forces of the
> powerful Israeli lobby in official Washington.
> Leading the push for Senate approval of the bill are the Anti-
> Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, run by Abe Foxman, the
> American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee.
> Also lending its support is Empower America, the neo-conservative
> front group established by William Kristol, editor and publisher of
> billionaire Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, which is said to be
> the "intellectual" journal that governs the train of foreign policy
> thinking in the Bush administration.
> One other group has lent its support: the U.S. India Political Action
> Committee, an Indian-American group that has been working closely
> with the Israeli lobby now that Israel and India are geopolitically
> H.R. 3077 is bureaucratic in its tone, decipherable only to those
> with the capacity to wade through legislative linguistics. It would
> set up a seven-member advisory board that would have the power to
> recommend cutting federal funding for colleges and universities that
> are viewed as harboring academic critics of Israel.
Two members of the board would be appointed by the Senate, two by the
> House, and three by the secretary of education, two of whom are
> required to be from U.S. federal security agencies. The various
> appointees would be selected from what The Christian Science Monitor
> described on March 11 as "politicians, representatives of cultural
> and educational organizations, and private citizens."
> FEARS ECHOED
> Gilbert Merk, vice provost for international affairs and development
> and director of the Center for International Studies at Duke
> University, has echoed the fears of many when he charged that this
> advisory board "could easily be hijacked by those who have a
> political axe to grind and become a vehicle for an inquisition."
> The primary individuals promoting this effort to control intellectual
> debate on the college campuses are prominent and outspoken supporters
> of Israel and harsh critics of the Arab and Muslim worlds. They are:
> * Martin Kramer, a professor of Arab studies at the Moshe Dayan
> Center at Tel Aviv University in Israel;
> * Stanley Kurtz, a contributor of ex-CIA man William F. Buckley Jr.'s
> bitterly anti-Arab National Review Online and a research fellow at
> the staunchly pro-Israel Hoover Institution; and
> * Daniel Pipes, founder of the pro-Israel Middle East Forum and its
> affiliate, Campus Watch, an ADL-style organization that keeps tabs on
> college professors and students who are-or are suspected of being-
> critics of Israel.
> These three, along with the Israeli lobby, are claiming that they are
> fighting "anti-Americanism" as it is being taught on the college
> Republicans in Congress have joined this chorus, preferring to allow
> their constituents to think that this is an "America First" measure.
> Juan Cole of the History News Network responds to this extraordinary
> twist on reality saying that the claim of "anti-Americanism" is
> intellectually dishonest.
> "What they mean . . . if you pin them down is ambivalence about the
> Iraq war, or dislike of Israeli colonization of the West Bank, or
> recognition that the U.S. government has sometimes in the past been
> in bed with present enemies like al Qaeda or Saddam. None of these
> positions is 'anti-American,' and any attempt by a congressionally
> appointed body to tell university professors they cannot say these
> things-or that if they say them they must hire someone else who will
> say the opposite-is a contravention of the First Amendment of the
> U.S. Constitution."
The promoters are also suggesting that this legislation would,
> according to the American Jewish Committee, "enhance intellectual
> freedom on campus by enabling diverse viewpoints to be heard." Of
> course, the legislation would do precisely the opposite, say critics.
> Lisa Anderson of the Columbia University School of International and
> Public Affairs said in response that "this plan . . . is not about
> diversity, or even about the truth."
Ms. Anderson does not cite the role of the Israeli lobby, but instead
> targets conservative Republicans who are acting as the Israeli
> lobby's surrogates and says that this plan is "about the conviction
> of conservative political activists that the American university
> community is insufficiently patriotic, or perhaps simply
> insufficiently conservative."
What she should be saying is that these Republicans who are carrying
> water for Israel are concerned that universities are "insufficiently
> The Republican House members who originally joined Hoekstra in co-
> sponsoring this legislation should be named for the record. They are:
> John A. Boehner (Ohio), John R. Carter (Texas), Tom Cole (Oklahoma),
> James Greenwood (Penn.), Howard (Buck) McKeon (Calif.), Patrick J.
> Tiberi (Ohio) and Joe Wilson (South Carolina).
Americans will not be able to find out how their representatives
> voted on the bill. Hoekstra asked for a suspension of the House
> rules, which was approved, making it possible for the controversial
> measure to be passed with an unrecorded "voice vote." There is no
> record of how individual House members voted or if they even voted at
> The measure passed by the House is the same type of
> proposed "ideological diversity" legislation that AFP detailed in its
> Oct. 20, 2003, issue. At the time, the measure was being kicked
> around for possible introduction in the Senate by two prominent
> Republicans, Rick Santorum (Penn.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.).
> AFP's initial report on the legislation garnered so much attention
> from American college and university professors and on the Internet,
> even so far as the Arab world, that the resulting negative publicity
> forced Santorum and Brownback to back off.
> Many major American education organizations, including the teacher's
> union, the National Education Association, have raised their concerns
> about this campaign to muzzle the free speech of teachers, professors
> and instructors. The American Civil Liberties Union has also
> protested this measure.
> Critics say this is a new form of what has been known in the past
> as "McCarthyism," and no matter what you may think about the late
> Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose name, rightly or wrongly, inspired that
> terminology, the truth is that this legislation is "McCarthyism" by
> virtue of the popular definition.
> The only chance to destroy this legislation and stop it dead in its
> tracks is for enough grassroots citizens to rise up and demand that
> H.R. 3077 be put to rest.
> And believe it or not, the one senator who may be able to stop it is
> Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy of Massachusetts.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_19_ ... bill_.html