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
Isn't this one such law? It does everything it can to allow the states to quasi-officially establish Christianity as the state religion.
I've noticed when reading the findings of bills that they often are completely out of synch with reality. This is actually one of the better ones though.
DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments...
This is why it will get thrown out. It is by law giving preference to only one religion's expression, making only that religion's founding documents legal for display. This is tantamount to establishing that religion. If they broadened it to religious statements and documents in general they would be safer, but then the states would have a problem when they tried to stop other religions (which they would).
Even though we factually know they're lying, they can as usual justify the "God" stuff by saying they are talking about higher powers in general, and that's not necessarily establishing a religion.
...is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively.
This is also why it will get thrown out. Congress is stepping on the judiciary's toes and interpreting the Constitution on separation of powers.
On the other hand, this really pisses me off. All powers not specifically granted to the fed are automatically reserved to the states or to the people. Yet the fed's huge power grab over the last 60 years has forgotten that fact. So now they want to let states have one little power back. How incredibly nice of them.
The subject matter of subsections (a), (b), and (c) are excepted from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.
They do have this power and it would be nice to see some circuits neutered in one of their activist areas. But this does mean that the issue jumps straight to the Supreme Court. All they did here was cut the timeline for ultimate resolution.
But don't be fooled people. This is yet another grandstanding law. They are wasting time on something they know won't stand constitutional muster just to curry favor with the voters.
Therefore, Congress approving of their public display does not favor any one particular religion, and could easily be interpreted as hinging upon their place in our culture as the very foundation of all Western Law.
Your argument thus falls apart.
;-/
Thank you for playing. I won't even rebutt your reply since I disagree with just about everything you posted. There are so many if's, and's, and but's in your reply, it becomes meaningless.
FGS
That it is. It is a waste of time devoted to getting out the looney base for one more election. You would think that "World Class" legislators would know "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The liberal activists on the bench, you mean? They've been dictating their own socialist agenda, and this bill is to bring the Constitutional rights back to the people.
I'll be more than happy to support it. The Constitution should come before liberals activist. Sheesh!
This does not establish a religion and actually addresses previous acts and actions prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Its brevity and simplicity are its beauty.