The “Constitution Restoration Act”

Their Will Be Done: Cre­at­ing a theoc­ra­cy in America

In a time when a clearcut­ting pro­pos­al is named the “Healthy Forests Ini­tia­tive” and the “Clean Air Act” allows for more rather than less air pol­lu­tion, “Con­sti­tu­tion Restora­tion Act” is a wor­ri­some moniker. Lit­tle sur­prise that it seeks to cir­cum­vent that cen­tral premise of the Constitution.

If its back­ers get their way, Amer­i­cans will no longer receive the same pro­tec­tions that Wash­ing­ton has care­ful­ly insist­ed that Iraqis have. The Con­sti­tu­tion Restora­tion Act was intro­duced Feb. 11 in the House by Rep. Robert Ader­holt (R‑Ala.), co-spon­sored pri­mar­i­ly by Alaba­ma Repub­li­cans. It was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Richard Shel­by (R‑Ala.), co-spon­sored by, among oth­ers, Zell Miller (D‑Ga.). The act was draft­ed by Herb Titus, the legal coun­sel for Alaba­ma’s con­tro­ver­sial judge Roy Moore, who was recent­ly removed from office for his refusal to remove a Ten Com­mand­ments mon­u­ment from a cour­t­house. The act calls for exemp­tion from Supreme Court juris­dic­tion of all cas­es in which pub­lic ser­vants, includ­ing judges, “acknowl­edge” God as “the source” of law. The restrict­ing of Supreme Court juris­dic­tion is a strange maneu­ver, but one which the hazy lan­guage of the rel­e­vant part of the Con­sti­tu­tion may allow. The Act would dis­al­low the Supreme Court from ref­er­enc­ing any source oth­er than the Con­sti­tu­tion or Eng­lish com­mon law in its deci­sions. It would retroac­tive­ly exempt from Supreme Court juris­dic­tion cas­es such as Roy Moore’s. A judge who attempt­ed to rule in such cas­es could be impeached. It is unclear exact­ly what actions a pub­lic ser­vant could get away with under the ban­ner of invok­ing God as the source of law.