[extropy-chat] Constitution Restoration Act will effectively transform the United States...

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What does this mean?
> > (http://www.aemman.net/letao/archive/000257.html)
> > "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."
> > 
> > The legalese is a bit heavy, but does this mean
> that whoever declares
> > that he is acting in the name of God is
> efefctively out of the scope
> > of the Law?
> 
> No. What it means is that it is restoring Natural
> Law, as stated in the
> constitution, created by who or whatever you believe
> caused the
> universe, as an abstraction of the laws of physics,
> chemistry, biology,
> and evolution (as I happen to believe) or you can
> short-cut it all and
> say "God", "Ghu", "Uberhacker", "Metasysop", "The
> Great Gamer", etc.
> has embedded objective truth in the universe.

Umm...actually, no.  The God referred to is as whoever
is in power happens to define it, especially if they
claim to have support from a bunch of others (e.g.,
quoting the Bible or somesuch).  Which means that if
they believe that your discussion of evolution is
sinful and should be made illegal, so be it.

Those who refer to "God" in this manner often don't
care for those who promote "Natural Law".  And if you
object, what could you do?  Your Natural Law has no
place in the eyes of their God - emphasis on "their".

> Those who believe that all rights are negotiated and
> have no concrete
> or objective basis in truth will repell at this law.

As will some of those who believe that this would
enable efforts to suppress their objectively-based
rights, based on what those who propose this
legislation have attempted through other means.

[They]
> will try to claim that
> it is what it is not.

Don't dismiss the opposition as liars just because you
happen to disagree with them at first.