Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Provides Protection For States Against Activist Federal Judges on religious issues
Talon News ^ | 08/27/03 | Jimmy Moore

Posted on 08/27/2003 7:21:22 AM PDT by bedolido

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) recently introduced a legislative statute which would prevent the federal courts from being involved in religious issues which are considered to be under the Tenth Amendment jurisdiction of the states.

The "Religious Liberties Restoration Act," or S.1558, would help restore religious liberties that have been taken away by activist judges.

This legislation is not a constitutional amendment, but it would remove federal court review of cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments, changing the National Motto, or removing words from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Because a constitutional amendment would not be needed for this to pass, this bill would become law by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and signed by the President. As a result, federal judges would not be allowed to alter this law in any way.

The provision for voting on this kind of measure is found under Section III, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution and has already been used 11 times in the previous Congressional session.

The "Religious Liberties Restoration Act" would disallow situations like the one facing Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments monument.

Additionally, it would give Americans the freedom to display the National Motto of "In God We Trust," say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and display the Ten Commandments in a designated spot chosen by the community, including government property.

Also, this bill would bring an end to conflicting rulings by federal judges regarding U.S. laws. For example, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that displaying the Ten Commandments in a public building is constitutional, while another federal judge in Alabama says that it is not.

Donald E. Wildmon, the Chairman of the American Family Association, is encouraging citizens to contact their U.S. Senators and urge them to co-sponsor and support S. 1558.

Currently, the bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for review when the U.S. Senate reconvenes in September.

Copyright © 2003 Talon News -- All rights reserved


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: activist; bill; federal; issues; judges; judicialtyranny; protection; religious; religiousliberties; s1558; states; wayneallard

1 posted on 08/27/2003 7:21:22 AM PDT by bedolido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bedolido
Thanks for posting this....have visited the link and entered my humble opinion.
2 posted on 08/27/2003 7:26:29 AM PDT by cowdog77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
Also, this bill would bring an end to conflicting rulings by federal judges regarding U.S. laws. For example, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that displaying the Ten Commandments in a public building is constitutional, while another federal judge in Alabama says that it is not.

Well, that's a bit of an oversimplification... it would stop circuit splits on this issue.

The way that our legal system is ordered, differences of law between circuits, as well as federal districts, is inherent.
3 posted on 08/27/2003 7:29:52 AM PDT by TheAngryClam (TOM McCLINTOCK is my choice for governor. He should be yours too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
" introduced a legislative statute which would prevent the federal courts from being involved in religious issues which are considered to be under the Tenth Amendment jurisdiction of the states."

What we also need is a:
Judicial determination which would prevent the federal Congress from being involved in any issues which are considered to be under the Tenth Amendment jurisdiction of the states.
4 posted on 08/27/2003 7:32:46 AM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
The problem here is that "Congress shall make no law...". That is how the first ammendment starts out. This means that things to do with religion are to be decided at the state level with no butting in by the Feds. The courts have already taken this power away from the states. So, do you think the Courts will look at legislation depriving them of the ability to control the world without finding that legislation unconstitutional?
5 posted on 08/27/2003 7:43:56 AM PDT by Big Mack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
From this brief report of it, this bill is EXACTLY the remedy which I proposed for the "God" cases, in my latest column. (Click below.) And this remedy for the problem is entirely constitutional. (Read the text of Article III on the judiciary, if you have any doubts about this.)

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "In the Justices We Trust?" posted on FR, other publication to come.

6 posted on 08/27/2003 8:11:53 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob ("Don't just stand there. Run for Congress." www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
SPOTREP
7 posted on 08/27/2003 8:53:45 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
We have an amendment and a Constitution. Why another law?

8 posted on 08/27/2003 8:56:01 AM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
This legislation is not a constitutional amendment, but it would remove federal court review of cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments, changing the National Motto, or removing words from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Let's just pass knee-jerk legislation custom tailored to carve out special legal protection for particular ideologies at the first sign of a setback.

This should do wonders to instill confidence in the rule of law. People will understand that the law is subject to change whenever a legislator gets offended by the opposition. We'll just pass a law undercutting the opposition so they can't do it again... uh, until they undercut us, that is.

So much pettiness. Can't we have some adults in Congress?

9 posted on 08/27/2003 9:08:13 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) recently introduced a legislative statute which would prevent the federal courts from being involved in religious issues which are considered to be under the Tenth Amendment jurisdiction of the states.

Two comments. First, this is silly, and could raise all sorts of issues as to what entails "religious issues". Would "Christians" scream if Utah decided that poligamy is now legal? What if Arizona said peyote is religious, and can't be outlawed? What will the DEA say about that?

Secondly, this will go nowhere, and would be ruled unconstitutional if it did. Its essentially "Setteled law" that "religious issues" are not part of the 10th Amendment. No State can establish, promote or give favor to any religion. Its settled. Live with it.

10 posted on 08/27/2003 9:21:26 AM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
Mega-bump!
(I will follow up on this - thanks!)
11 posted on 08/27/2003 10:13:47 AM PDT by talleyman (It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
People will understand that the law is subject to change whenever a legislator gets offended by the opposition.

Legislators are supposed to be the ones who write laws, remember? Not judges.

12 posted on 08/27/2003 10:16:44 AM PDT by talleyman (It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
Because judges ignore both. (We also need to de-frock some robes.)
13 posted on 08/27/2003 10:17:47 AM PDT by talleyman (It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: talleyman
Legislators are supposed to be the ones who write laws, remember? Not judges.

But not on a whim or every turn of the dime.

14 posted on 08/27/2003 11:54:18 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson