[Tax-chick]

Don't we already have an Amendment for this? "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise ..."

I hesitate to criticise dear Rep. Istook and his supporters, but what's the use of another Amendment, when SCOTUS will simply rule that it doesn't mean what it says? Like, how much more clear could "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged," be?

[WOSG]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged,"

I expect this to be re-interpreted to mean the right to wear tank tops!

[pieces of time]

The catch phrase there is "Congress shall make..." The Founders didn't provide for "Supreme Court shall make no laws..."
Hopefully, Bush will nominate a SC Justice who follows the Constitution. I have my pen and stationary all set to encourage my CINO Senators, Mikulski and Sarbanes, to support the Nominee and the Constitution they swore to uphold.
But then, what did Mother Teresa say about a Nation that will kill it's babies?

[StonyBurk]

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.

[Loud Mime]

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.