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

Skip to comments.

Istook to offer bill to protect religious rights for schools
The Hill ^ | June 21, 2005 | Patrick O'Connor

Posted on 06/20/2005 7:28:42 PM PDT by bulldozer

Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) is expected to introduce a constitutional amendment to protect religious expression in schools and on other public property soon after the Supreme Court decides two landmark cases about the displaying the Ten Commandments on public grounds. The court is expected to announce its decision by Monday.

This is the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on a case regarding the Ten Commandments since 1980, when the court banned them from display in public-school buildings.

Istook’s amendment, the “Pledge and Prayer Amendment,” could be the next chapter in an ongoing battle over the propriety of religious expression on government-owned property. In seeking to establish a new constitutional protection for religious expression, it would also signal a new challenge of the federal judiciary by congressional Republicans.

Conservative lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), have grown increasingly outspoken about what they perceive to be “judicial activism” by federal judges. They point to recent rulings about gay marriage, mandatory-minimum sentencing and Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who died after a federal judge overturned a congressional decree to reinsert her feeding tube in March.

(Excerpt) Read more at hillnews.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: 109th; amendment; constitutional; istook; prayer; religiousliberty; schools; tencomandments

1 posted on 06/20/2005 7:28:42 PM PDT by bulldozer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

later pingout.


2 posted on 06/20/2005 7:38:43 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bulldozer
Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) is expected to introduce a constitutional amendment...

You know I hear this stuff, but when was the last time congress actually amended the constitution? I'm fifty-two and I'm fairly sure it did not happen in my lifetime. When did they limit the President to two terms?

3 posted on 06/20/2005 7:39:48 PM PDT by TheHound (You would be paranoid too - if everyone was out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheHound

In 1992, I believe, the 27th Amendment was ratified, which had something to do with the payraises of Congress critters.


4 posted on 06/20/2005 7:41:00 PM PDT by okstate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheHound

I am also 52 and the following ammendments have been passed in our lifetime:
XXIII, ratified March 29, 1961, granting the Presidential vote in Washington DC.
XXIV, ratified January 23, 1964 banning poll taxes.
XXV, ratified Feb 10, 1967, concerning the Presidential succession.
XXVI, ratified June 30, 1971 lowering the voting age to 18.
XXVII, ratified May 7, 1992, concerning Congressional pay.

The ammendment that limited the President to two terms of office is the XXII and was ratified Feb 27, 1951.


5 posted on 06/20/2005 7:53:30 PM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ops33
Thanks - I remember now - well sort of, some are so obscure. I have no rcollection at all (Congressional pay & Presidential sucession). I remember that the college "ratskellers" were open for a couple of years to 18 year olds. The thought, at the time was if you could be called to fight and die for the country, you should be able to order a drink. It was quickly realized, that drinking 18 year olds were causing a problem, so the States under the guidance of the US Government, made it such, that, at age 18 you are a fully responsible adult, you could vote, sign a contract etc. etc., but you can not buy a beer.

Well all that said, there is no reason to believe, that this Congress or any in the near future will ammend the Constitution so as to allow religeous expression in a public school.

6 posted on 06/20/2005 8:51:51 PM PDT by TheHound (You would be paranoid too - if everyone was out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thompsonsjkc; odoso; animoveritas; DaveTesla; mercygrace; Laissez-faire capitalist; ...

Moral Absolutes Ping.

FYI - after the SCOTUS makes its 10 Commandments decision.

Any bets on what it will be?

I don't gamble, so my opinion doesn't count. I'll just say I am not optimistic. After some of the vile decisions they have made - such as the Texas sodomy decision, or denying under 18 criminals the justice of the death penalty (plus numerous others), I have little faith they'll decide properly.

Oh well, if they decide wrong, it'll just bring the inevitable a little closer.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.


7 posted on 06/20/2005 9:06:17 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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