[cowdog77]

Thanks for posting this....have visited the link and entered my humble opinion.

[TheAngryClam]

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.

[John Beresford Tipton]

" 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.

[Big Mack]

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?

[Congressman Billybob]

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.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[mabelkitty]

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

[tdadams]

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?

[HurkinMcGurkin]

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.

[talleyman]

Mega-bump!
(I will follow up on this - thanks!)