To Restore Religious Freedoms.

Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet ^ | 8/21/03 | Wayne Allard(R-CO)

[ForGod'sSake]

S 1558 IS

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1558

To restore religious freedoms.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

August 1 (legislative day, JULY 21), 2003

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To restore religious freedoms.

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 `Religious Liberties Restoration Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature and of nature's God.

(2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the constitutions of every State, using various expressions, recognize God as the source of the blessings of liberty.

(3) The first amendment to the Constitution secures rights against laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof made by the Federal Government.

(4) The rights secured under the first amendment have been interpreted by the Federal courts to be included among the provisions of the 14th amendment.

(5) The 10th amendment reserves to the States, respectively, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States.

(6) Disputes and doubts have arisen with respect to public displays of the Ten Commandments and to other public expression of religious faith.

(7) Section 5 of the 14th amendment grants Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment.

(8) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to except certain matters from the jurisdiction of the Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

SEC. 3. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY RIGHTS DECLARED.

(a) DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively.

(b) WORD `GOD' IN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- The power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The Pledge of Allegiance shall be, `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all.'.

(c) MOTTO `IN GOD WE TRUST'- The power to recite the national motto on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The national motto shall be, `In God we trust'.

(d) EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO EXCEPT- The subject matter of subsections (a), (b), and (c) are excepted from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

END

The bill has a total of 10 cosponsors; they are:

Sen Brownback, Sam - 9/23/2003 [KS]	Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/20/2003 [KY]
Sen Burns, Conrad R. - 9/29/2003 [MT]	Sen Cochran, Thad - 9/30/2003 [MS]
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 10/21/2003 [ID]	Sen Enzi, Michael B. - 10/2/2003 [WY]
Sen Graham, Lindsey O. - 9/26/2003 [SC]	Sen Inhofe, Jim - 9/30/2003 [OK]
Sen Lott, Trent - 9/30/2003 [MS]	Sen Shelby, Richard C. - 9/25/2003 [AL]

[antiRepublicrat]

Congressional legislation which Congress cannot do. Therefore ...SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over religious cases.

I was with you up to here. The problem is that Congress and other legislative bodies are passing this type of legislation, of which the subject of this thread is a prime example.

and since the High Court deals with congressional matters it too, by extension, cannot deal in religious matters relating to the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court can deal in any case in the land, period. The Constitution grants it ultimate appellate authority, and that's how these cases get there.

[Noachian]

uummm, It was Congress that added Under god to the pledge.

And that established a religion HOW?

[qam1]

Leave a guy on a deserted island with a Bible and he can become a Christian. But he'll never be a Catholic, Mormon, etc... Without the extraneous philosophy, the guy on the island has a better chance of getting to heaven lol

HUH? The guy on the Island would never become a Methodist, Bapist or whatever either.

Actually if someone was on a deserted island with a lot of freetime to read the bible the odds are he would become an Athesit, As they say no book has created more Athesit than the Bible.

[ForGod'sSake]

Let's start with '63 since that's about the time the courts went over the edge:

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the woman's right to refuse to work on her Sabbath without relinquishing her right to unemployment benefits.

I don't suppose we know this woman's particular religious affiliation do we?

Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969)
The Court unanimously decided that a Superior Court overstepped its constitutional powers by involving itself in an internal church dispute and that a Georgia law was unconstitutional for giving juries the right to make decisions in theological disputes.

Well, not knowing what the original ruling was, it's impossible to say just who was served by this. The fact that the high court found the lower court was butting in is encouraging.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
On May 15th 1972 the Court ruled 6 to 1 that the compulsory education law in Winconsin did indeed violate the Free Exercise Clause for Amish parents.

Amish?

McDaniel v. Paty (1978)
The Court ruled that Tennessee's statute forbidding clergy from holding public office improperly forced citizens to choose between exercising two of their fundamental rights.

One has to wonder how that one ever got on the books in the first place. Basically a no brainer, but I'll concede it.

Lynch v. Donnelly (1983)
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city of Pawtucket could continue to display a nativity scene as part of its Christmas display.

State supreme court? Then why are there to this day attacks by the ACLU and their like minded cronies on Nativity scenes?

There are also others that I would consider to be upholding religious freedom, but that a person with a narrow "Christians only" view would see otherwise.

Then there are several anti-religious freedom ones you'd probably agree with. One of which is:

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
In an 8-1 Court Decision, the Court ruled that a school district's interest in creating national unity was sufficient to allow them to require students to salute the flag.

Hmmmm, prewar 40's? National unity? I'm not so sure I agree with the concept, but I suppose I can live with it.

FGS

[Noachian]

The Supreme Court can deal in any case in the land, period.

Wrong.

The Court has granted itself that authority by usurpation. The Constitution expressly forbids Congress, and by extension, the Court to delve into religion as per the First Amendment.

[ForGod'sSake]

At some point, could you clarify what you see the risk to be?

I find nothing repugnant about the bill either, however I believe a law/statute could be more easily attacked by the wannabe monarchs, than the constitution itself, that's all.

FGS

[antiRepublicrat]

There are different requirements for creation of private schools, including less funding. Why should they be forced to build a yeshiva?

I was only surprised that they hadn't already built one. That's usually one of the first things on the minds of a Jewish community, especially Hasidic.

To me "No law respecting an establishment of religion" means "No law" period. I want it that simple and that absolute. No law. That's not hard to understand I think.

In that line of thinking, we should privatize the schools with various strings attached to ensure equitable education and minimum standards, and then let any group apply for public school funds. That also means you can't exclude religious groups from applying for these equal funds to run religious schools because that would require a law.

[Noachian]

...that Congress and other legislative bodies are passing this type of legislation, of which the subject of this thread is a prime example.

On this point I agree with you. Congress cannot delve into religious matters by passing a bill to correct what Congress itself messed up. As always in religious matters Congress should have a hands off approach as should the Court.

[Modernman]

In effect it means Congress can have nothing to do with religious matters.

Okay, I accept that, to the extent it means that Congress cannot pass any laws aimed specifically at religion, though neutral laws that effect religion are certainly constitutional.

Since the High Court deals with questions of Constitutional violations by the government the Court cannot hear a religious case unless that case was proposed by Congressional legislation which Congress cannot do.

The Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to the States, so State action that results in a constitutional violation is reviewable by SCOTUS.

Congress has to have a hands off approach to religion, and since the High Court deals with congressional matters it too, by extension, cannot deal in religious matters relating to the First Amendment.

SCOTUS is not an extention of Congress- it is it's own separate branch of government and has separate powers. SCOTUS has the power to review any cases that implicate a right granted by the US Constitution. Congress does have the power to take certain things out of the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but that just means they would be left to the state courts.

Following your interpretation, no court would have jurisdiction over cases involving religion.

[antiRepublicrat]

Then why are there to this day attacks by the ACLU and their like minded cronies on Nativity scenes?

Don't ask me. Some people can't take a hint I guess. Personally, I think most creches are beautiful.

I noticed you eliminate them when the specific case didn't apply to a Christian. Not nice. These cases provide precedent for future cases in which Christians can be involved, protecting their rights.

I'm not so sure I agree with the concept, but I suppose I can live with it.

Because it doesn't affect your particular beliefs, or because you understand an overriding need for national unity?

[ForGod'sSake]

As far as I'm concerned, government entities have no rights.

Boy, that's cold, but I'm not sure I follow.

And empowering government entities with the ability to endorse a religion is what this law is about.

You think so. I don't read it that way, but to each his own. In any case, as long as they're not establishing a religion, I'm probably OK with it.

FGS

[Noachian]

The Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to the States, so State action that results in a constitutional violation is reviewable by SCOTUS.

Incorporated by whom and for what purpose? Certainly the Founders didn't use incorporation into the Fourteenth, so it must have been the High Court. By what authority, other than their own, does the High Court have for incorporation of ANY of our rights?

SCOTUS is not an extention of Congress- it is it's own separate branch of government and has separate powers.

The SC deals with federal legislation, put out by the Congress, and as such its cases are an extension of Congressional legislation.

. Following your interpretation, no court would have jurisdiction over cases involving religion.

Yep. Just like the Founder wanted it to be. Think about it.

[ForGod'sSake]

Everyone knows the First Amendment, but overlooks that one word "respecting", which means, in this case, to have nothing to do with. In effect it means Congress can have nothing to do with religious matters.

Oh good grief! You can't get past the first sentence without parsing the language! Baloney!

FGS

[ForGod'sSake]

I noticed you eliminate them when the specific case didn't apply to a Christian. Not nice.

Not really. It does support my contention that a minority religion has a better chance of getting a positive decision in the courts however.

FGS

[qam1]

And that established a religion HOW?

Passing a law that people have to acknowledge a particular mythology in order to pledge allegiance to their country is most certainly establishing a religion, Monotheism over Atheism and Polytheism.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.."

Notice it says establishment of religion as in religion in general which what a beleive in God is. It does not say establishment of "A specific" religion.

[Buggman]

Oh for crying out loud . . . The differences are purely in how the commandments are grouped, like whether the injunction against idolatry is a part of the first commandment or a separate commandment altogether. It doesn't really matter to me or to 99% of Christians and Jews out there. You're just trying to set up a straw man.

[Natural Law]

There are a multitude of laws prohibiting the public expression of Christianity. I would highly recommend the book "Persecution" by David Limbaugh.

[Modernman]

Incorporated by whom and for what purpose?

Incorporated by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was intended to, among other things, apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

The SC deals with federal legislation, put out by the Congress, and as such its cases are an extension of Congressional legislation.

No, the Supreme Court interprets federal legislation and decides whether a law is Constitutional. SCOTUS is and has always been, an independent branch of government.

Yep. Just like the Founder wanted it to be. Think about it.

Who would decide whether a law violated the religion aspects of the 1st Amendment?

[mcg1969]

Are you going to recognize the Church of Satan and the Scientologists and others of similar ilk?

Of course not. My claim is simply this: the government can recognize or acknowledge a certain subset of the world's religions---zero, one, or more than one---without that constituting an illegal establishment of them, and without preventing the free exercise of other, unrecognized religions.

Now of course recognizing a religion without establishing it is a pretty weak act. For example including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a recognition, forcing someone to recite it is an establishment. Putting "In God We Trust" on our money is a recognition, allowing only Christians to posess it would be an establishment.

You are free to argue that it isn't a good idea to do any recognition at all and that's fine---but I claim it's not unconstitutional. So majority rules.

[antiRepublicrat]

I would highly recommend the book "Persecution" by David Limbaugh.

Books of paranoia and conspiracy theory don't impress me. I didn't much care for the left's "Right Wing Conspiracy" books either.