Posted on 12/26/2003 3:42:12 AM PST by kattracks
RECENTLY, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Ten Commandments monument that sits on the grounds of the Texas state capital is indeed constitutional.
The monument had been donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles more than 40 years ago to provide our nation’s young people with rules of good and proper conduct. However, one disgruntled citizen, Thomas Van Orden, filed a suit against the monument claiming its presence was bothersome to him.
The court’s opinion explained, “Even those who would see the Decalogue as wise counsel born of man’s experience rather than as divinely inspired religious teaching cannot deny its influence upon the civil and criminal laws of this country. That extraordinary influence has been repeatedly acknowledged by the Supreme Court and detailed by scholars. Equally so is its influence upon ethics and the ideal of a just society.”
But many legal cases around the country illustrate that this is hardly the only case in which the Ten Commandments are a flashpoint of conflict in our nation’s ongoing culture wars. Nor, as last year’s decision by the 9th Circuit on the Pledge of Allegiance demonstrates, can the judges in the federal courts be counted upon to reach a sound decision.
Too many cases are being brought before the federal courts that involve symbols of our Judeo-Christian heritage, such as the Ten Commandments, only to have their meaning fall victim to the ideological activism of judges. Indeed, Liberty Counsel, the non-profit legal counsel that filed an amicus brief in support of the state of Texas, is involved in a number of similar such cases throughout the country.
Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., a politician widely respected for his uncommon sense of decency, maintains that it is important to clarify that such matters are best left to the states. He introduced the Religious Liberties Restoration Act (S. 1558) on Aug. 1 to ensure that states retain the authority granted to them by the 10th Amendment to determine how and if the Ten Commandments, Pledge of Allegiance, and the national motto (“In God We Trust”) should be allowed on state-owned property.
Allard recognizes that the Tenth Amendment maintains “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”
Furthermore, Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate the federal courts “with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Therefore, the state courts and the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments or the saying of the pledge on property owned or controlled by state government.
Allard introduced this bill in response to the judicial activism that has been taking place in the federal courts. Fortunately, in the Texas case, the 5th Circuit ruled wisely. That is not always the case, as demonstrated by last year’s ruling by the 9th Circuit declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because the words “under God” represented an “endorsement of religion.”
Allard has attracted 10 co-sponsors for the Religious Liberties Restoration Act. U.S. Rep. Charles “Chip” Pickering, R-Mo., has introduced a companion bill, the Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties Act (H.R. 3190).
RLRA, should it pass, would eliminate one venue in which judges frequently appear to be more interested in scoring political points than ruling according to the law and acknowledging the importance of local precedent and custom. It is no cure-all in that judges on the state courts can practice the same kind of activism, but citizens often would be able to exert influence through the legislative or elective process rather than litigation.
Allard’s bill needs to be debated and voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee if it is to have a chance of reaching the Senate floor for a vote before the end of next year. There is good cause for hope that this bill will pass if for no other reason than a whole industry of litigation has been spawned by interest groups seeking to destroy the meaning of important symbols such as the Pledge of Allegiance and even our national motto.
Congress has already demonstrated concern. Immediately after the 9th Circuit issued its ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance, Sen. Thomas Daschle, D-S.D., at the time he was majority leader, sponsored S. Res. 292, which put the Senate on record taking exception to the court’s egregious decision. It passed by a vote of 99-0.
As long as the federal courts have activist judges intent on putting their wishes ahead of correctly interpreting the law, then our symbols are at risk of having their meaning stripped away by their rulings. The legislation offered by Allard and Pickering cannot guarantee against mendacious meddling by the state courts. However, there are avenues in the state for seeking effective resolution of judicial activism. Our federal courts have been too prone to make rulings that reflect the personal biases of the judges, not law and custom. When it comes to protecting the symbols of our national heritage from the activism practiced by the federal courts, then the legislation offered by Allard and Pickering represents an important step forward.
Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
A suggestion: ammend your ammendment as follows:"All words following the phrase 'Congress shall pass no law without repealing two others' shall be striken from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.