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

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

Mike, thanks for the explanation, but now I find this even more disturbing.
You interpret the reference to "Natural Law" in terms of rights, and
believe it will be used to protect individual rights. I am afraid it
will be interpreted in terms of duties and things forbidden, and used
to take individual rights away.
"Natural Law" is a beautiful philosophic concept, but it is not
defined precisely, and cannot be defined precisely. So it is very,
very open to interpretation, and since we are talking of law and
legislation, the interpretation will be provided by those in power.
Suppose they want to outlaw stem cell research, abortion, sex out of
marriage, etc., as things against Natural Law. Suppse they want to
outlaw this very extropy-chat list, or your Free State. Suppose they
want to outlaw the Libertarian Party. It seems to me that if a judge
simply claims that these things are against Natural Law, he can get
away with it without even having to prove his claim, and nobody can
criticize or reverse his decision.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:53:28 -0700 (PDT), Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > This is very scary. See also this website:
> > http://www.yuricareport.com/
> > Usually I don't pay much attemption to extreme conspiration theories,
> > but this confirms what everyone can understand by carefully reading
> > the press: there are people and groups trying to turn the US into a
> > fundamentalist theocracy.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> This law restores Natural Law to its proper place as the only basis of
> our Constitution, of Common Law, Equity Law, etc as the framers so
> frequently stated. This quoted section specifically is saying that the
> Court cannot reverse the actions of an officer or agency of the federal
> government on the basis that the officer or agency based its actions in
> Natural Law. It does not say that the officer or agency HAS to base its
> actions on the will of God, or even that they may or must do so.
> 
> Those who believe that all rights are negotiated and have no concrete
> or objective basis in truth will repell at this law. The subjectivists,
> the revisionists, those who legislate from the bench, the moral
> relativists, and other apologists and equivocators who have been
> seeking to tear down the US Constitution for the last century or so
> will hate this law, will lie about this law, and will try to claim that
> it is what it is not.