Posted on 07/02/2005 5:57:22 AM PDT by NYer
WASHINGTON D.C.— A constitutional amendment that would protect public expressions of faith and religion was introduced, after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling removed the Ten Commandments from a Kentucky courthouse, reported CNSNews.com.
Buoyed by pro-family groups, more than 100 congressmen proposed the Religious Freedom Amendment.
"Intolerant people have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school, and other religious expression, but this amendment will halt those attacks," said Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) in a statement.
The Supreme Court has sent the clear message to public officials that “they will face an onslaught of expensive litigation unless they remove the Ten Commandments from public property,” he said.
The amendment reads: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity."
"Our founders created a country and a Constitution that protected the ability of individuals to freely express their respective religions in public life,” said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md).
“What they opposed was a state religion,” he explained in a statement. “The latest pair of Supreme Court decisions adds to decades of confusion about what seems so simple to most Americans.”
A two-thirds vote in the House and Senate is required to pass the constitutional amendment. Then, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the 50 states.
Uhhh. The Constitution already allows for the free exercise of religion. Why does the Constitution need to be changed? The problem is with the judges who have "interpreted" the Constitution to the point that what it's understood to mean is often in diametric opposition to what it actually says.
This is the wrong strategy and it attacks symptoms rather than underlying causes.
If you want to get me excited, propose a constitutional amendment that either limits the tenure of Federal judges or reverses Marbury vs Madison. Preferably both.
Uh, yup.
Kind of like the flag-burning amendment ... where did SCOTUS get off thinking torching a flag was 'free speech' that couldnt be regulated but putting out flyers that say a Congressman is a corrupt nincompoop *could* be regulated?
Our Constitution is being destroyed by wilful mis-interpretation.
Uhhh. The Constitution already allows for the free exercise of religion. "
Uhhh, the ACLU-amended SCOTUS-Ginzberg-Breyer-Souter-OConnor-Stevens version does *not*.
The Supreme Court has now redefined the Establishment Clause to enforce a secularist view that doesnt allow any act that might 'promote' religion. In their book, a single plaque on a courthouse wall is equivalent to "Establishment", irregardless of the fact that "Establishment" to our founders meant stuff like forbidding folks of the 'wrong' religion from even holding office, etc.
later pingout.
"If you want to get me excited, propose a constitutional amendment that either limits the tenure of Federal judges or reverses Marbury vs Madison. Preferably both."
Limiting tenure won't change their stripes ...
and Marbury v Madison reversed? Never happen. Amendments are hard enough, and hte Democrats would have a good case to oppose it (do you *really* want the courts to *not* be able to overturn laws? What about recent "Kelo" decision?); 'rollback of our rights' to the umpteenth degree. the best we could hope for would be some Article III section 2 shots across the bow from Congress to limit review in some cases.
This "Freedom of Religious Expression" amendment is a good idea, it encapsulates the proper understanding of the 1st amendment, highlights the problems of which you speak, *and* would be agreed to by 80% of Americans.
Nevertheless, you are right that this addresses just one facet of the challenge from liberal judicial activism. the *real* solution is to defumigate our law schools and the courtrooms of these "living Constitution" ACLU-brow-beaten Judicial activists. Term limits can't help much because it is a matter of the *whole legal culture* being pulled over to the dark side of judicial activism. The only ones resisting are the explicit conservatives of the Federalist Society stripe.
A Scalia Court majority is our best and only hope at this point.
One more reason to support Luttig for USSC.
we do have an amendment We also have a Supreme Court that
believes they alone can say what any amendment means -and
quite often of late what they say it means has zero relation to what the clear language and original intent meant-so by all accounts we need either a new Court--or a new amendment and as weveryone knows it is easier for a mere politician to write a new amendment than it is to Impeach an unjust Judge.
I see your point ... but I don't see why anyone would think a new amendment would make a difference. If SCOTUS is going to "interpret" using Babelfish, they can amend until you're blue in the face, but it won't do any good.
"Uhhh, the ACLU-amended SCOTUS-Ginzberg-Breyer-Souter-OConnor-Stevens version does *not*."
So what would lead you to believe that a new and improved Constitutional amendment would be any more likely to be observed by the judiciary than the current one?
The problem is not with the Constitution, which is laregely sound, but the cast of characters who are interpreting it to mean whatever they think it should mean. You have to look at far more basic issue: should unelected judges with lifetime tenure be able to have veto power over laws that they don't like?
The answer in my view is a clear NO.
In my view until you address that very basic issue, all the Constitutional amendments in the world aren't going to fix the problems that we're running into. You go through the work to pass an amendment to the Constitution and the judiciary just reads it how it reads the existing Constitution: however it pleases.
And then people can see for themselve which one makes sense.
The idea that every single religion in the world needs to have a placard is not reasonable. Of course liberals are not reasonable.
It wouldn't hurt, but there's not enough room unless a whole wing of a building is dedicated to that purpose. Actually, it would be interesting, because every monotheist religion in the world has the same basic moral absolutes.
The idea of an amendment is perhaps admirable, but the problem is so deep, that those who hate God no matter what name He is called (but have an strange attraction for Islam, oddly enough) will worm their way around this one, too. I mean, the amendment protecting religious expression is already as clear as day.
Good question- short answer-NO- neither will it make the demigods in black believe they are in position of power to
proclaim the Constituion and Law means only what they say it does at that moment in time. The foundations have been destroyed and th epolitical house erected by Franklin and
his peers when we were a Christian nation is about to fall
for every nation divided against itself is brought to desolation and every city or house divided agaist itself shall not stand.
I think it is true nobody does think a new amendment will make any difference but it does allow the merepoliticians to claim they did something.Oldest shell game on the book
Ah, now I understand you! Thanks!
this is what I call a "fundraising amendment."
There's no other reason for such legislation. Of course, almost 95% of the proposals never get through anyway.
I see your point.
"Limiting tenure won't change their stripes ..."
No it won't, but it will allow you to get rid of the worst actors over time.
"Marbury v Madison reversed? Never happen. Amendments are hard enough, and the Democrats would have a good case to oppose it (do you *really* want the courts to *not* be able to overturn laws? What about recent "Kelo" decision?)"
I very much doubt that either conservatives or liberals would push for an end to Marbury v Madison. But that's really where the problem lies (as well as with the unelected nature of the Federal judiciary).
The point of contention in the political sphere is less over the proper role of the judiciary but of getting judges appointed that represent one's own political bent.
And yes, I would like to see an end the unelected judiciary's ability to overturn laws. That's a tool that's been used to achieve bad ends as often as good. If judges were elected, I'd have much less of a problem with judicial review. But Federal judges are not elected and are almost completely unaccountable for their actions.
"So what would lead you to believe that a new and improved Constitutional amendment would be any more likely to be observed by the judiciary than the current one? "
Yes, for one reason, that it would be explicitly passed to correct wrong SCOTUS rulings. They would be forced to correct the relevent rulings.
"The problem is not with the Constitution, which is laregely sound, but the cast of characters who are interpreting it to mean whatever they think it should mean."
I agree emphatically, and why I say a Scalia Majority is necessary.
But you seem to be arguing that this amendment is a band-aid ... well, even if so, if you are bleeding profusely, a bandaid wouldnt hurt, it will help. Let's not have the good be the enemy of the best. We need to address this on multiple fronts, it's a big issue.
Not so Rep Istook. Read your bible and discover that God Himself is not tolerant. It is people who demand tolerance who have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school, and other religious expressions.
Well .. I don't like the wording of "intolerant people". Any non-Christian is "intolerant" of anything to do with GOD or Christians, etc.
I very much doubt that either conservatives or liberals would push for an end to Marbury v Madison. But that's really where the problem lies (as well as with the unelected nature of the Federal judiciary). "
I'm not sure I agree, and there is the rub. The judiciary *needs* the right to interpret the Constitution in a way to trump laws that Congress passes, or the Constitution is a dead letter. McCain-Feingold would have *no* constraints on it, "Kelo" and Eminent Domain would run riot, etc. In fact, without Marbury, no Supreme Court would have stopped the early New Deal, and we'd be a europeanized, socialized state by now.
On the other hand, the *misuse* of that judicial power in the hands of 'living Constitution' judicial activists has killed the constitution and our democracy ...
Choose your poison. The only salvation is the concept of "judicial restraint" where the judges check themselves in their actions.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
I am not opposed to this amendment; but I really doubt it will do any good even if ratified. Why not? We already have such a simple one. And those who hate God and want to eliminate Him and any reference to His existence in the public sphere won't understand or abide by any new amendment.
What's the answer to stop the forcible establishment of atheism as the state religion in this country? I wish I had an answer.
Million Man/Woman Pray ins?
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Note: There are none so blind as those who don't want to see.
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.