HR 4922, To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.

The Liberty Committee ^ | June 26, 2002 | Kent Snyder

[EBUCK]

Get your rep to co-sponsor this bill. This is a great opportunity to restore the original intent of the 1st. Especially considering yesterdays 9th decision. Let your rep know what the 1st is really about!

EBUCK

[inquest]

Please! We don't need no stinkin' "First Amendment Restoration Act". We need to whack some judges upside the head and give 'em the Andrew Jackson treatment.

[EBUCK]

We don't need to reign in the legislation-from-the-bench policy we are currently subject to? And assaulting judges would be a better course of action?

EBUCK

[inquest]

I wasn't saying we should physically slap them! And the Andrew Jackson reference was to him (purportedly) saying, "Justice Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

I just have a deep-seated suspicion against solutions that involve writing more rules and procedures and complications, when there could be a very simple solution.

[EBUCK]

I get it. I kinda thought that you were one of the "beat-em-up" types. And I agrre that making more rules is usually not the way to go but with the current practice of legislating from the bench (which is in fact very enforcable) neccessitates a law that prohibits that practice.

EBUCK

[Free the USA]

Bump list

[madfly]

thanks for the ping

[Jim Noble]

The Constitution needs to be amended to revoke Everson, Lemon, and subsequent cases.

Since most voters and Congressthings are now illiterate, Amendment I needs to be simplified as follows:

Congress shall make no law establishing any religion as the national religion.

Congress may not infringe upon or prohibit the free exercise of any person's religion.

Nothing in this Constitution may be construed to permit the Executive or Judicial power of the United States to infringe upon or to impair the free exercise of any person's religion.

[madfly]

ping

[EBUCK]

That is what it says now. At least we know that it says that. Perhaps an amendment is in order here.

Does your opinion support or frown upon teachers practicing religion in the state-funded class room?

EBUCK

[Carry_Okie]

Nothing in this Constitution may be construed to permit the Executive or Judicial power of the United States to infringe upon or to impair the free exercise of any person's religion.

You may want to rethink that clause. Assume that my religion requires human sacrifice...

[EBUCK]

Or suicide bombings...Good point.

EBUCK

[rwfromkansas]

bump......

[rwfromkansas]

Not a good point. Such things are already prohibited because they constitute murder and violation of other laws on the books.

[Carry_Okie]

Wrongo! By casting that provision into the Constitution it would supercede those laws.

[EBUCK]

Well, if you take the law at face value (un-biased) murder ect is just as illegal as classroom religion is thanks to the 9th CC. Also, who will set the standard for what is an un-acceptable religious practice and what isn't?

EBUCK

[DoughtyOne]

the Case of the Freeper FRiva Feva is under scrutiny - super-sleuths are welcomed
come resolve the way to yesterday's Target Post, you're not out of the running yet
win your registration fees to the FRive Las Vegas Conference if you dare

[Middle Man]

If ever proof was needed that the Constitution is moribund, or else cavalierly ignored by the courts, it is when a society feels the need to pass laws that compel judges to obey the supreme law of the land. It should be enough to just invoke the Constitution, but...these are strange times we live in.

[weikel]

Ill grant that the judges are idiots but a law cannot modify an amendment or anything else in the constitution.