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

A wayward federal appeals court ruled today that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in unconstitutional. For decades, federal judges have warped, shredded and outright ignored the Constitution of the United States.

Liberty Caucus member Roscoe Bartlett put it well: "Today's decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a ludicrous and factually inaccurate misinterpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Every one of our founders is turning over in their grave."

We can correct this horrific court decision. On June 12, 2002, Congressman Ron Paul introduced The First Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 4922) -- and it brilliantly and completely tells this warped court that they are not only out of line, but it tells them this is none of their business in the first place.

Tonight on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, members of Congress assembled in front of invited television cameras to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. That nice photo opportunity isn't enough, not one of them is a cosponsor of H.R. 4922. Not one...NOT YET.

It's up to you to tell your elected representative: Don't just talk the talk and pose before the cameras -- take action.

To read this remarkable piece of timely legislation, (you will thank Congressman Paul for the foresight to have had it meticulously prepared and submitted two weeks ago) go to Link to bill text and to action page

Then, send your elected representative an unmistakable message in your own words by clicking "Take Action Now" on that same page.

Rarely are we handed such an opportunity. Much of the American public is focused on this single issue just hours after the court announced its decision. The runaway federal judiciary has gone too far. We can hang them with their own decision.

We can make history if we rise to the occasion. More than ever, it is up to you.

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

(1) The freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is acknowledged to be one of the fundamental and unalienable rights belonging to all individuals.

(2) The Framers of the Constitution deliberately withheld, in the main body of that document, any authority for the Federal Government to meddle with the religious affairs or with the free speech of the people. Then, as further and more specific protection for the people, they added the first amendment, which includes the `establishment clause' and the `freedom of speech clause' which are as follows: `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .'. It is of utmost importance to note that the first amendment is not a grant of authority to the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a specific restriction upon the exercise of power by the Federal Government.

(3) For over 150 years, the Court held to this historically correct position in interpreting the first amendment. During this period, scant mention was made to `The Separation of Church and State'.

(4) Then, beginning in 1947, and accelerating through the 60's, the Court abruptly reversed its position. This was done with no change in the law, either by statute or by amendment to the Constitution. The Court invented the distorted meaning of the first amendment utilizing the separation of `church and state' in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education when it announced: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 1, 18 [1947]). Over the past five decades, rulings of the United States Supreme Court have served to infringe upon the rights of Americans to enjoy freedom of speech relating to religious matters. Such infringements include the outlawing of prayer in schools and of the display of the Ten Commandments in public places. These rulings have not reflected a neutrality toward religious denominations but a hostility toward religious thought. They have served to undermine the foundation of not only our moral code but our system of law and justice.

(5) In making this abrupt change, the Court ignored all historical precedent established previously by the Court, the wording of the First Amendment, and the intent of its framers. The rulings are legally irrational and without foundation. Although the Court presumed to rely upon the First Amendment for its authority for these rulings, a review of that Amendment reveals that said rulings could not possibly have been based upon its original intent. Consequently, it is incumbent upon this Congress to review not only the rulings of the Court which are in question but the wording and history of the First Amendment to determine the intent of its framers. This abrupt change is found in the following court cases:

(A) `A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral.' (Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Abington v. Schempp, 1963, Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden, 1971.)

(B) `Freedoms of speech and press are guaranteed to students and teachers unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional.' (Stein v. Oshinsky, 1965, Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 1981, Bishop v. Aronov, 1991, Duran v. Nitsche, 1991.)

(C) `It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them.' (Stone v. Graham, 1980, Ring v. Grand Forks Public School District, 1980, Lanner v. Wimmer, 1981.)

(D) `If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud.' (Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965.)

(E) `The Ten Commandments, despite the fact that they are the basis of civil law and are depicted in engraved stone in the United States Supreme Court, may not be displayed at a public courthouse.' (Harvey v. Cobb County. 1993.)

(F) `When a student addresses an assembly of his peers, he effectively becomes a government representative; it is therefore unconstitutional for that student to engage in prayer.' (Harris v. Joint School District, 1994.)

(G) By interpreting the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in any public place, the Supreme Court necessarily violates the free speech clause of the very same first amendment. These rulings of the Court constitute de facto legislation or Constitution-amending. This is a serious violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, as all legislative authority bestowed by the people through the Constitution is bestowed upon the Congress and the Congress alone.

(6) A fundamental maxim of law is, whenever the intent of a statute or a constitution is in question, to refer to the words of its framers to determine their intent and use this intent as the true intent of the law.

(7) The intent of the First Amendment was and is clear on these two points: The Federal Government was prohibited from enacting any laws which would favor one religious denomination over another and the Federal Government has no power to forbid or prohibit any mention of religion, the Ten Commandments or reference to God in civic dialog.

(8) In its rulings to prohibit Americans from saying prayers in school or from displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, the Court has relied heavily upon the metaphor, `Separation of Church and State'. Note that this phrase is nowhere to be found in the First Amendment or any other place in the Constitution.

(9) The metaphor, `Separation of Church and State', was extracted, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in reply to a letter from them expressing concern that the Federal Government might intrude in religious matters by favoring one denomination over another. Jefferson's reply was that the First Amendment would preclude such intrusion.

(10) The Court, in its use of Separation of Church and State, has given to this phrase a meaning never intended by its author; it took it out of context and inverted its meaning and intent. The complete text of Jefferson's letter is found in Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

(11) Justice William Rehnquist made an extensive study of the history of the First Amendment. In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 48, n. 30 [1984],) he stated: `There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the `wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson. . . . But the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The `wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history. . . . It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. . . . Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor. `It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights, as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today, to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from endorsing prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God. History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.'

(12) As Justice Rehnquist states, the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its `mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . ' It is necessary to review not only Jefferson's intent in his use of this `wall', but his involvement or noninvolvement in the drafting of the First Amendment, and the intent of the framers of the First Amendment.

(13) Jefferson was neither the author of nor a coauthor of the First Amendment. He cannot be considered as a source of legal authority on this subject. The Court, if it had wished to rely upon Jefferson to determine the true and original intent of the First Amendment, could have served themselves and the American people well by referring to Jefferson's admonition to Judge William Johnson regarding the determination of the original intent of a statute or a constitution: `On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.' (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor [Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830, Vol. IV., p. 373,] to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823).

(14) The principal authors of the First Amendment, the record reveals, were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Thomas Jefferson. Others who participated were John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut and William Paterson of New Jersey and James Madison and George Mason of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson is not found in the record as having participated. (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Seaton, 1834], Vol. I, pp. 440-948, June 8-September 24, 1789.)

(15) George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention and recognized as `The Father of the Bill of Rights', submitted this proposal for the wording of the First Amendment: `All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.' (Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason [New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892,] Vol I, p. 244.)

(16) The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, submitted the following wording for the First Amendment: `The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.' (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Season, 1834,] Vol. I, p. 451, James Madison, June 8, 1789.)

(17) The true intent of the First Amendment is reflected by the proposals submitted by Fisher Ames, George Mason and James Madison and the wording finally adopted.

(18) Justice Joseph Story, considered the Father of American Jurisprudence, stated in his Commentaries on the Constitution: `The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohometanism [sp], or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy [a denominational council] the exclusive patronage of the national government. (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [Boston; Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1833], p. 728, par. 1871.)

(19) Proof that the intent of the framers of the First Amendment did not intend for the Federal Government to restrict the exercise of free speech in religious matters in civic dialog is found in various statements by George Washington, who was President when the Congress adopted the First Amendment. The following is found in his `Farewell Address': ` . . . of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.' (George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States. . . . Preparatory to his Declination [Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796], pp. 22-23.

(20) James Wilson was a very active member of the Convention and was later appointed by President George Washington as an original Justice on the United States Supreme Court where he coauthored America's first legal text on the Constitution. Wilson never mentioned a `separation of church and state'. To the contrary, he declared the correlation between religion and civil laws: Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. (James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor. Philadelphia; Bronson and Chauncey, 1804. Vol. I, pp. 104-106.)

(21) It was Fisher Ames of Massachusetts who provided, on the 20th of August, 1789, the final wording for the First Amendment as passed by the House of Representatives. Fisher Ames, who should be considered the foremost authority on the intent of the First Amendment, never spoke of a separation of church and state. (Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames, Boston; T.B. Wait & Co. 1809, p. 134, 135.)

(22) Because the Court does not seem to be disposed to correct this egregious error, it is incumbent upon the Congress of the United States to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, by the use of its authority to apply checks and balances to other branches of the government, when usurpations and the exercise of excesses of power are evident. The Congress must, then, take the appropriate steps to correct egregious problem.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`(a) IN GENERAL- The district courts of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any religious freedom-related case.

`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `religious freedom-related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL CLAIMS COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`(a) IN GENERAL- The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any religious freedom-related case.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

The amendments made by this Act shall apply to cases filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

I get the feeling that this attempt is to set in Law (since congress has no other way to do it besides Constitutional Amendment which they are alergic to) Congresss'interpretation of the Constitution.

The thing I find amusing about this is that if anyone were to challenge this law, if passed, would probably see it all the way to the same circuit court that the law was aimed at in the first place. I don't know if this is the right way to go about getting the courts out of the legislation game but something has got to be done.

EBUCK

OK. Do you think this bill is unConstitutional?

Also if congrees hasn't the authority to interpret the Constitution what should our action be against the bench legislation? Should congress create an ammendment to the same effect that this bill is?

EBUCK

One more question if I may...

All this bill actually does is explain the position of congress (if passed congress would be of the mind that the 1st protects religious speech in all areas, public and private) and removes judicial authority in such cases from the district courts appearantly leaving the SCOTUS to decide such things. Is the congress prohibited defining jurisdiction like this as well?

EBUCK

I believe Congress has the power -- buried in 10 inches of dust and cobwebs by now -- to limit the matters that can be addressed by the courts. But, being Congress, it has handed off all kinds of risky issues like school integration and religion to the judiciary as too hot for elective officials to handle.

I forgot about State ratification for amendments....that one's sunk for sure.

What about limiting district court jurisdiction, as I think this bill does just that, is that unConstitutional as well. Or had you, Colonel, already answered that question in your last reply.

EBUCK

You have pretty much convinced me that this is a failed attampt before it even gets going.

Add to that the Libertarian announcement I just received...."WASHINGTON, DC -- Libertarians are applauding Wednesday's federal court ruling striking down the mandatory Pledge of Allegiance, because a nation in which a government can coerce religion or patriotism is no longer free."

And I get the feeling that this is just a bunch of hooplah over nothing.

Question, did the 9th CC actualy strike down a "requirement" that the POA be recited or did they outlaw its recitation in classrooms. I seem to be quite un-informed....need more coffee..

EBUCK

The opinion held two things: 1) that the 1954 Act of Congress adding the words 'under God' is unconstitutional, and 2) that the practice of the Elk Grove Unified School District of teacher-led-recitation with the added words included violates the Establishment Clause.

I'm having a lot of trouble typing with my foot in my mouth here. I was under the impression that the 9th banned recital of the POA by "anyone" in public school.

I'm going to try to do better next time I get a wild hair to post and try to defend something.

I was way off. EBUCK

This bill still brings up some very valid points however.
1. The first amendment does not contain the words ‘separation of church and state’. The government is not prohibited from saying there is a God. It is prohibited from establishing a government sponsored religion, such as the church of England.
2. People that believe in God, pray, or otherwise worship are being discriminated against and, in increasing numbers, being denied first amendment rights to free speech.
3. Federal judges and the judges of the Supreme Court are misinterpreting the constitution.

Instead of a bill that makes new law, I would like to see this changed to a congressional proclamation. Congress (and we the people) should let the judges out there know that Americans are tired of being trampled on. America should not be the land where the 1 percent is catered to, while the majority suffers because of the 1 whiner.
If you take a cross and soak it in a jar of urine, it’s ok to display in public because now it’s ‘art’. If you remove the urine and just have the cross, now it’s incredibly foul – it’s forcing people to religion!!?? Where IS this country heading?? A lot of people started using the phrase “God bless America” after Sept 11, but I ask you, why would He? We just declared him unconstitutional!
I absolutely would not want the government to tell me how to worship, but they also shouldn’t be limiting the free exercise of religion, by misinterpreting the constitution, either.

I agree with just about everything you wrote. The only problem I have is with the proclamation part. I think more concrete measures are in order. What those measures are I have no idea.

Also, if the courts are "misinterpreting the constitution" where is the higher gubmental authority that has the power to correct them? They are not elected, nor subject to expulsion, ever right?

EBUCK

I agree that more concrete measures are in order. There does need to be a way to remove morons from the bench. The problem being, if there was a very liberal congressional majority, they could remove conservatives and ‘stack the deck’. Care must be taken to ensure the 3 branch ‘checks and balances’ is maintained.
Most public office holders are required to take an oath to support and defend the constitution. Did these judges? If so, then they are guilty of a crime for not doing so and should be removed on that basis (including quite a few congressmen for the same crime). If they aren’t so required then they should be.

I read something once that said a couple of Flag salesmen came up with the Pledge as a way to sell more flags.

Does anyone know if this is true, or what the origin of the Pledge was.

My allegiance is to God, Our Constitution, America and Her People and my Family.

And I don't care what no stinking atheist thinks. I wish I lived next door to the SOB, he would hear a lot of religious music ( I don't have much, but I would get some more),they would also hear lots of "smile God loves you's" and "God bless you's".

There are countries around the world that if You travel through them You are not allowed to carry Bibles. In America we are supposed to have "FREEDOM of RELIGION" not freedom from religion. If the mention of God offends this guy and his lifeless family, I would chip in for tickets to Russia (Siberia).

Of course he would have to know how to fly once the plane was over Siberia, oh well.

If so, then they are guilty of a crime for not doing so and should be removed on that basis (including quite a few congressmen for the same crime). If they aren’t so required then they should be.

But if the judiciary determines the meaning and intent of the Constitution how can they be charged with misinterpreting it?

That is the whole problem with the judge appointment process. It is so damned partisan that getting a nuetral and un-biased judge is impossible.

EBUCK

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.