**Questions and Answers**

**ON THE**

**CONSTITUTION RESTORATION ACT**

**"CRA" 2004**

**Q. What is the purpose of this bill?**

**A.** The purpose of the CRA is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction
of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that
jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States.
The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and
government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is
cited as the "organic law" of our Country by United States Code
Annotated. The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God
and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government. The
acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal
courts.

The CRA also protects and preserves the Constitution of the United
States by restricting federal courts from recognizing the laws of
foreign jurisdictions and international law as the supreme law of our
land.

**Q. Does this bill reverse Supreme Court precedent?**

**A.** To the extent that any decision of the United States Supreme
Court or that of any federal district court made prior to or after the
effective date of the Act prohibits the acknowledgment of God as the
sovereign source of law, liberty, or government, such precedent would
not be binding on state courts.

**Q. Does this bill intrude into the constitutional powers of the
federal judiciary?**

**A.** No. Use by Congress of Article III regulation of the appellate
jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts
is provided by the Constitution as a check on the Judicial Branch when
it exceeds its jurisdiction. When federal courts prohibit the
acknowledgment of God they deny the very source of life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness which our founding fathers specifically recognized
in the Declaration of Independence as unalienable rights given by God.

To prohibit a state official from recognizing God is a violation of the
Tenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution. If Congress cannot make a law restricting states from the
acknowledgment of God under the First Amendment, how can the Supreme
Court enforce a law which Congress cannot make?

The CRA would restore the balance of power among the various branches of
government and restore the fundamental precepts upon which our
Constitution and government is based.

**Q. Does the CRA promote an establishment of religion?**

**A.** No. The right to acknowledge God is not and never has been the
establishment of religion. According to the United States Congress, in
the 1954 legislation placing "Under God" in the Pledge: "A distinction
must be made between the existence of religion as an institution and a
belief in the sovereignty of God." The actions of state and federal
officials from the adoption and implementation of the First Amendment
illustrate that the acknowledgment of God was never intended to be
prohibited by the First Amendment. Even the First Congress (which agreed
on the words of the First Amendment) on September 25, 1789, adopted a
resolution on that very day asking President Washington to declare a day
of thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God for the peaceful manner in
which the Constitution was formed. From that time to the present, both
state and federal officials have continuously acknowledged God in oaths,
prayers, and official ceremonies. Eight days after Congress requested
the president to declare a day of thanksgiving and prayer, President
Washington did exactly that on October 3, 1789, in his first
Presidential Proclamation, stating, "Whereas, it is the duty of all
nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will,
to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection
and favor . . .."

**Q. Does the CRA deny other faiths in America?**

**A.** No. The freedom of conscience and right to worship God according
to the dictates of conscience are the very objects guaranteed by the
First Amendment.

Justice Joseph Story in his [Commentaries on the
Constitution]{.underline} regarding the First Amendment stated: "The
rights of conscience are indeed beyond the reach of human power, they
are given by God and cannot be encroached upon by any human authority
without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural as well as of
revealed religion."

**Q. What are the practical effects of CRA on pending legislation?**

**A.** This bill would cover all present bills before Congress regarding
the Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments, National Motto "In God We
Trust," and all other acknowledgments of God. Furthermore, this bill
would preserve freedom of conscience and equal treatment under law
guaranteed by the Constitution by restricting federal intrusion into our
right to acknowledge God. People are never to be judged on their
thoughts in a court of law and the right to believe as one chooses is a
right given by God, not by government.

**Q. Does the CRA affect the religious test provisions of Article VI?**

**A.** No. The right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of
one's conscience should never be used as a test or standard for people
to seek or hold public office.

**Q. What would prevent the United States Supreme Court from declaring
the CRA unconstitutional?**

**A.** The authority of Congress under Article III is specifically
enumerated and cannot be questioned by another branch of government.
Should the Supreme Court resort to the law of foreign nations or the
European Court of Human Rights for authority, impeachment and removal
from office are appropriate remedies. Conflict between the various
branches of government is not without historic precedent. The control of
funding and power of impeachment are traditional controls over the
Judiciary by Congress.

Separation of powers is a critical part of our Constitution;
nevertheless, something more egregious happens when a branch of
government intrudes its powers into the freedom of conscience to
acknowledge God secured by the First Amendment. James Madison spoke of
such an intrusion when he stated in the Memorial and Remonstrance: "The
preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and
bounds which separate each department of power may be invariably
maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to
overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The
rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from
which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit
to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an
authority derived from them and are slaves."

Thomas Jefferson also spoke of such an intrusion in his Bill for
Religious Freedom when he stated: "That to suffer the Civil Magistrate
to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and restrain the
profession or propagation of opinions on supposition of their ill
tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious
liberty." This portion of Jefferson's Bill

for religious freedom was, in fact, quoted by the United States Supreme
Court in 1878 in [United States v. Reynolds]{.underline} as a violation
of what properly belonged to the church and not the state.

**Q. What is the strength of the CRA?**

**A.** The CRA will be supported by all those who oppose judicial
tyranny as well as all those who respect individual rights and the right
of every state to acknowledge God. This is not restricted to a political
party or persuasion.

**Q. Why is the English common law not excluded from consideration of
federal courts in interpreting and applying the Constitution?**

**A.** The common law is incorporated by reference into the United
States Constitution, in the 7th Amendment and remains a foundation of
American jurisprudence and an integral part of the organic law of the
land. Our American common law is largely derived from the more than
millennia-long tradition of English common law and constitutionalism,
including the Magna Carta.

**Q. What is the meaning of "acknowledgment of God" in the CRA?**

**A.** The public recognition of God by state and federal authorities
exists today in oaths, mottos**,** documents, prayers, monuments, and
various other medium. Even in our "organic law," the Declaration of
Independence, according to the United States Code Annotated, God is the
very source of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and government
authority. The CRA would preserve and restore the Godly basis of our law
and government.

**Q. What does the right to acknowledge God have to do with foreign
law?**

**A.** The acknowledgment of God and absolute standards distinguishes us
from other nations and political systems. The source of American law
cannot be replaced by laws of foreign jurisdictions which base their
authority on secular principles.

**Q. How does the CRA affect each and every individual?**

**A.** In 1952, the United States Supreme Court ruled in [Zorach v.
Clauson]{.underline} that, "We are a religious people whose institutions
presuppose a belief in a Supreme Being." During the last fifty years,
federal courts have excluded prayers in public schools, Ten Commandments
in public buildings, manger scenes at Christmas, and even the Pledge of
Allegiance in school classrooms. Even as late as 1984, the United States
Supreme Court struck down a state statute in Alabama which allowed a
moment of silence "or voluntary prayer." These examples have one thing
in common: "the acknowledgment of God." The CRA would restore our right
to acknowledge God and stop the ACLU and other liberal groups from
bringing frivolous suits simply because they are "offended" because
there is a God and a higher law. Our children would be free to pray
before eating lunch in their schools, public officials would be free to
acknowledge the God upon Whom they take their oath, and the moral basis
of our law regarding marriage could not be altered by judicial activism.