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

Skip to comments.

HR 4922, To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.
The Liberty Committee ^ | June 26, 2002 | Kent Snyder

Posted on 06/27/2002 9:41:49 AM PDT by EBUCK

Dear liberty activist,

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.

More will follow soon.

Text of bill formatted and provided by EBUCK

HR 4922 IH

107th CONGRESS, 2d Session

H. R. 4922

To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 2002

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

A BILL

To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `First Amendment Restoration Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(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:

`Sec. 1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases

`(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:

`1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases.'.

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:

`Sec. 1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases

`(a) IN GENERAL- The United States Court of Federal Claims 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 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases.'.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

END


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; churchandstate; hr4922; libertycommittee; ronpaul; ronpaullist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: ForOurFuture
That was why I posted the LibTar quote....(I've got the whole thing if you want it but you can guess how it goes pretty easily)...

I'm not sure Ron Paul actually wrote that bill in opposition to the 9th's decision, especially considering that it was submitted 2 weeks in advance of the decision. It may just be that this is a good oportunity to get the courts out of the legislative process so they ran with it figuring that the Pledge "crisis" would generate support for a bill that wasn't really gaining momentum. I don't know.

The origins and circumstances of the "under God" addition kinda puts me off as well.

EBUCK

41 posted on 06/27/2002 3:59:48 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ForOurFuture
Here is a link to Mr. Paul's actual statement.

http://www.house.gov/paul/pres s/press2002/pr062702.htm

In there he does seem to be at odds with the LP.

EBUCK
42 posted on 06/27/2002 4:03:01 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
For comparison....First is Ron Paul's statement....

Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul today condemned a federal appeals court ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be recited in schools because it contains the phrase "one nation under God."

"The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment," Paul stated. "It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it."

"The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis," Paul continued. "Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to "Almighty God" in our founding documents. It is only in the last 50 years that the federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights."

Paul previously introduced "The First Amendment Restoration Act" to reassert true First amendment religious freedoms and end the kind of judicial overreach exhibited today. The bill becomes especially timely now, as it clarifies that federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters of religious freedom. It also restores real religious freedom by making it clear that the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, the Ten Commandments, or reference to God in both public and private life.

Next, the LP announcement....

Libertarians applaud federal court ruling striking down mandatory Pledge of Allegiance

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.

"America is made great by its freedom, not by a flag," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party executive director. "Our children should have the freedom to pledge or not to pledge, and the freedom to worship or not to worship."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday struck down a California school district's policy of requiring teachers to lead children in the Pledge of Allegiance. The court found that the reference to "one nation under God" -- added to the pledge by Congress in 1954 at the height of the Cold War -- amounts to an official endorsement of monotheism.

Though the ruling specifically addressed only the religious aspect of the pledge, the debate quickly broadened to one over the pledge itself as America struggles with the war against terrorism. On Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats universally deplored the ruling. The Senate unanimously approved a resolution expressing support for the reference to God in the pledge, and House politicians gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge en masse.

"Libertarians have enormous respect for the values that the U.S. flag represents, and we understand that the way to honor those values is by preserving liberty, not by limiting it," Dasbach said. "Real religious freedom includes the right to not be religious, and true political freedom includes the right to not pledge allegiance to a political symbol.

"Politicians who rail against this ruling and claim they're defending the flag are confused by the difference between a symbol and the freedom for which it stands."

Dasbach conceded that during a national crisis, it's natural for politicians to sacrifice individual freedom in favor of government coercion.

"Interestingly, politicians were much more tolerant of dissent before September 11," Dasbach noted. "In 1998, for example, a proposal to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning garnered 114 'no' votes in the House, and was killed in the Senate. But today they're unanimous in their protection of the flag. Have that many politicians suddenly discovered 'patriotism' -- or are they trying to exploit an anguished American public?"

After all, politicians frequently try to use national crises as an opportunity to expand the power of the government, he noted.

"One way to do that is to suggest that anyone who criticizes a government action -- such as a government-mandated pledge in a government-run school -- is somehow unpatriotic. But there's a big difference between criticizing your government and criticizing your country, and it's a difference that politicians would like for you to forget.

The way to quell the controversy over the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is to extricate government from the schools, Libertarians say.

"It's no accident that the lawsuit that led to Wednesday's decision involved a government-run school," Dasbach said. "Naturally, parents get angry when their tax dollars are being used to force their child to do something with which they disagree vehemently.

"But no such problem exists at private schools. Parents who want their child to attend a school where religious worship and political pledging are mandatory are free to do so, and have every reason to pay the tuition. Parents who are opposed to such policies don't have to resort to a lawsuit to get what they want; they can simply find a school that shares their values.

"But as long as all Americans are forced to fund government-run schools, we will be forced to watch the Pledge of Allegiance controversy -- and forced to watch opportunistic politicians try to cash in."

First question....were children in public school required/forced to say "under GOD"? If so, the ruling is correct IMO.
Conversely, if the children were voluntarily reciting the POA and all its words, the ruling is a sham and is in fact a limitation on freedom of religion.

So which was it? Were the kids being forced or not? If it wasn't then the LP lied outright and my donations/votes are going elsewhere.

EBUCK

43 posted on 06/27/2002 4:10:48 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
Federal prosecutors can pretty much charge anyone they want with anything. It would come down to who would constitute a jury in the prosecution of federal or supreme court judges. Would it be congress for an impeachment type process or regular citizens for federal circuit court judges? I think that if you put some of these judges in front of a regular citizen jury, quite a few judges would be out of a job. Might at least make them think twice about railroading the constitution to bow down to a few cry babies. Of course it would still require some major stones on someone’s part to get the process moving.
You are absolutely right in your comment – unbiased judge is a classic oxymoron. It’s a pretty rare thing. There certainly needs to be some accountability for their actions.

44 posted on 06/27/2002 4:18:45 PM PDT by xNavspook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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

Don't be so sure. The 16th amendment APPEARED to have passed and the American sheeple fell for it. Now we have these rogue agents working for the IRS running around with guns and taking money at will without ANY warrants (which violates the 4th).

Until we get rid of this UNCONSTITUTIONAL amendment we will all be slaves to the government.

45 posted on 06/27/2002 4:20:31 PM PDT by unixfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xNavspook
Accountability! That was the word I was searching (in vain) for. Accountability Dammmmit!!!

If brought up on charges couldn't a judge just say "I interpreted it the way I interpreted it period" Which is what they are legally suppoed to do right? To really get at them one would have to prove intent to subvert the Constitution. Remember, these judges were all lawyers at some point and are probably just as slippery as willy.

Accountability or less influence on the meaning of our laws. I'm not sure how but something need doin.

EBUCK

46 posted on 06/27/2002 4:23:16 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: unixfox
Yah I know. But if I'm going to support something (an amendment for example) I would want it done right. Besides, they only skirt the law to pass amendments when it's bennificial for them to do so and this kind of amendment would only serve to limit their ability to get around the Constitution.

EBUCK

47 posted on 06/27/2002 4:26:00 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
Ron and his wife came to my Christmas party in 2000 and I was SO HONORED. He is such a wonderful person and a true Constitutional Rep!!!! I love that man!!!! Please keep Ron and his lovely, wonderful wife Carol, in your prayers! They are pillars of our community in Lake Jackson, Tex. and always have been. They have produced wonderful adult children, and many grandchildren. Just great people to know! He speaks the truth, even when no one seems to want to hear it!!!!!
48 posted on 06/27/2002 5:49:54 PM PDT by buffyt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
You are so lucky! I would give my left *** to meet and talk with that man.

EBUCK

49 posted on 06/28/2002 8:13:12 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
It won't work. We need a constitutional amendment of the kind Robert Bork advocated some years ago allowing both Houses of Congress to overrule by majority vote, any appelate or Supreme Court decision that Congress felt contradicted the Constitution. It would lodge the final say as to what the Constitution means with the elected representatives of the American people and curb judicial fiat. This is the amendment Ron Paul should have sponsored that is the appropriate response to the 9th Circuit's ruling.
50 posted on 06/29/2002 2:21:25 PM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Col. Forbin
"My point is that Congress has no Constitutional authority to 'set in Law' it's own interpretation of the Constitution."

Three words for you: Campaign Finance Reform.

51 posted on 06/29/2002 4:10:12 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

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