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.
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.
"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.