I ask that you not post any comments about the ruling in this thread but just an affirmation that you'll take action or that you won't.

If you have something to say about the ruling, please post it in this thread:[url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=127557[/url]

Edited to add some clarification here.
1) This bill does not prevent cases concerning religous freedom from being heard, except by District Courts and Federal Claims Court.

2) It does not allow for any law to be passed that would require people to attend church or any other religious functions or whatever. That WOULD BE a violation of the 1st.

Please read the entire bill and my other posts that follow.

Now, I got this in an e-mail tonight from The Liberty Committee:

[b]June 26, 2002


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
[url]http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/hr4922.htm[/url]

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.

To help pay for our work on this critical issue, please go to
[url]http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/contribute.htm[/url]

[/b]

Here's what this bill would do:

[b]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[/b]

There's alot of historical information in the bill that preceeds this. I'd say it's a must read!
           
             

So you're advocating the passage of a bill that would prevent every american from applying to have any statute declared unconstitutional on religious freedom grounds? So if a state passes a law declaring that eveyone will go to a christian church on sunday you couldn't bring a suit to stop that? Or you'd have to apply to the Supreme Court, so at least your ability to protect your constitutional right would be severly impinged v. protecting those who want to force their religious beliefs on others-sure looks that way

If district court loses this jurisdiction where do propose these actions be brought?

Looks like "The Liberty Commmittee" isn't afraid to restrict other's liberty to disagree with them...

Read the entire bill.

It prevents law suits like the one the 9th Circut Court of Appeals just ruled on.



That would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendmant.

That's my point-this bill would prevent someone from being an action challenging a law that is clearly a violation of the first amendment, not the mention the fact that the attempt to strip the district courts of their power is probably unconstitutional and you not only could not bring this action in district court, but the bill does not provide for the action to be brought anywhere.

I probably disagree w/you to a pretty significant extent on this issue, but I was really only trying to point out that this bill is going no where. I can't see it ever getting passed and if it did it'd be declared unconstitutional in record time.

My guess is that this decision is not going to hold up. I don't really follow this issue closely, but I think the Supreme Court has lost patience for banning Nativity Scenes in public parks, preventing school kids from singing christmas carols etc. so I'd guess that this decision will be overturned.

This DOES NOT prevent cases from being heard by the SCOTUS!

...and there are already laws on the books that state that the District Courts "shall not" have jurisdiction over.

[b]TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

                    PART IV--JURISDICTION AND VENUE

               CHAPTER 85--DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION

Sec. 1359. Parties collusively joined or made

   A district court [red]shall not have jurisdiction[/red] of a civil action in
which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or
collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 935.)


TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

                    PART IV--JURISDICTION AND VENUE

           CHAPTER 91--UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Sec. 1501. Pensions

   The United States Court of Federal Claims [red]shall not have
jurisdiction[/red] of any claim for a pension.


Sec. 1502. Treaty cases

   Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the United States
Court of Federal Claims [red]shall not have jurisdiction[/red] of any claim against
the United States growing out of or dependent upon any treaty entered
into with foreign nations.






Sec. 1509. No jurisdiction in cases involving refunds of tax
       shelter promoter and understatement penalties
       
   The United States Court of Federal Claims [red]shall not have
jurisdiction[/red] to hear any action or proceeding for any refund or credit
of any penalty imposed under section 6700 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to penalty for promoting abusive tax shelters, etc.)
or section 6701 of such Code (relating to penalties for aiding and
abetting understatement of tax liability).



[/b]

1) That would fall under actually violating the 1st.

2) Because it would be a state law it would start out in a state court, which, correct me if I'm wrong, could be based on #1 above. Even if #1 above doesn't apply, can you really imagine something like this not being resolved in a state court?

First, in my haste to respond to your last post, it totally slipped my mind that "clothing" isn't even covered under any of this. Oh well, I know what point you were trying to make.

Second:

That's the problem, it is happening!

Can't say a prayer in school.

Can't mention anything religious in a speech because you're representing the gov't.

Can't display Ten Commandments in a court room, although it's engraved in stone on the Supreme Court building.

Can't teach creationism, but you can teach evolutionism.

To Federal Government has no jurisdiction over what can or can not be said in a public place in regards to religion.

I don't know, I just don't see how this would be a bad thing. If it were already law, the Pledge would not have been declared unconstitutional today.

Now it will be appealed, probably...hopefully end up in SCOTUS where they will over turn it, taken up more time for something so stupid, which is probably a contributing factor as to why we can't get a 2nd Amend. Issue before SCOTUS.

And what about the laws that forbid the District Courts and the Federal Court from having jurisdiction over? Are they harmful?

Also, has there been any law suites filed that you know of where a person was denied the 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion from some law passed by the a state or the Federal Government? Can't use atheism law suits, it not a religion.

BTT for one last desperate gasp of air.

Hope I'm not the only one that understands this.

[b][size=6]GULP[/size=6]...[size=5]GULP[/size=5]...[size=4]GULP[/size=4]...[/b][size=3]Gulp[/size=3]...[size=2]gulp[/size=2]...[size=1]gulp[/size=1]...[xx(]

Why do I get the feeling that we have been so obsessed with our 2nd Amendment rights, that we have forgoten about our 1st Amendment rights which are just as important, if not more important?[:|]

           [b]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:

           (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. [u]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]).[/u][red] 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.[/red][/b]

Guess the hand writing was on the wall even back in 1947. We just don't know how to read.

Stormbringer,

The seperation of church and state was taken out of context....ah hell, here:

[b](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.
[/b]

...and Thomas Jefferson was not even the author of the 1st Amendment, so he should not even be quoted when ruling on it.

Good news. SCOTUS just approved school vouchers...which I agree with also.

Bad news, they also ruled it can be demanded that students take a drug test. I think by urinalysis, but maybe blood too. Not sure.

Shaggy,

I think your adding 2+2 and getting 3.

Congress by no means will be allowed to make any such laws.

However, if particular county wants to have prayer in their school in the mornings, then the Federal Gov't has no right to stick their nose into that communities business.

If you live in a school district where this is done and you disagree with, you can move to a district where they don't.

It's kind of like my argument for the 10th Amendment. It is suppose to be so that States have more rights as to what laws they have in their state. Today however, due to the Federal Government providing handouts to the states, they control the laws throughout the country.

Take the drinking age for example. Before Congress came along and threaten to with hold highway funds for states that did not pass a law requiring the drinking age to be 21.

So a 20 year old person, living on his own, who can vote and die for his country has no place to go if he likes to have a beer with his diner. Okay, more like getting inebriated on Saturday nights.

It works with just about everything concerning States/Federal government relationships.

When it comes right down to it, the Federal government has no legal basis what we can or can not say in regards to religion in public places and should keep their noses out of it.

Heck, it's not just the schools. From what I understand, churches can't even preach against abortion on Sunday mornings because it's a political issue. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one, but I believe it's true. Has to do with their tax exempt status.

Believe me I have, over and over again. I could probably quote all 6 pages to you.

But you know what's funny? I think the Pledge would have been struck down under this bill also.

I'm tired. Didn't even go to bed last night.

I'll be back late tonight.

Your right, sleep deprivation doesn't allow you to think striaght. I was thinking two different thoughts at the same time!

Anyway, I'm communicating via e-mail with The Liberty Committee as to how the "shall not have jurisdiction" clause can be explained and what it would mean for someone who had a legitimate case on the grounds of religious freedom, i.e., state law requiring everyone to go to church.

In the mean time, here's a press release from Ron Paul about the Pledge and the bill. I think you'll find he his whole purpose is to protect freedom of religion.

[url]http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr062702.htm[/url]

I think maybe the confusion here is, the courts wouldn't have jurisdiction over matters of freedom of religion, however, they would have jurisdiction on matters concerning the establishment of religion.

At least that's what I'm thinking. I'll wait and see what the Liberty Committee has to say.

You may be right. However, from what I've seen with the Baptist church up in Indianapolis, if you're not tax exempt, it leaves them a door open to come in and shut you down if they decide they don't like you.