I mentioned last month that right-wing senators like Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Zell Miller (Ga.) had introduced an insane proposal called the “Constitution Restoration Act” (S. 2082). The measure, which its proponents admit was written in part by Roy Moore, would restrict the federal courts’ ability to even hear cases regarding a state-sponsored “acknowledgment of God.”
In other words, conservatives in government would be free to promote their version of Christianity — First Amendment be damned — and no one would be permitted to take the matter to the federal courts because judges wouldn’t have the authority to consider the case. It’s the latest in a long line of court-stripping measures that I’ve been complaining about for a year now.
Remarkably, this lunacy has picked up some support among the Senate’s right-wing fringe. In addition to Shelby and Miller, Sens. Allard, Brownback, Lindsey Graham, and Inhofe have signed on as co-sponsors. (Santorum hasn’t expressed his support yet, but it’s only a matter of time.)
Thanks to a tip from my friend Darrell, I wanted to mention that this bizarre proposal now has a companion measure in the House.
Rep. Bob Aderholt (R-Ala.), another ally of Roy Moore and the religious right, is championing the legislation that he says is intended to protect “public acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government.”
“Federal courts prohibiting the acknowledgment of God is a denial of the very source of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our founding fathers specifically recognized in the Declaration of Independence,” said Congressman Aderholt. “Our founding fathers acknowledged this as an unalienable right given by God. Prohibiting public officials from recognizing God violates the Constitution’s Tenth and First Amendments.”
None of this makes any sense, of course. First of all, this argument suggests courts are interfering with individuals’ free speech; “acknowledgment of God” is somehow facing a government-wide crackdown. This is obviously nonsense.
Second, to hear Aderholt tell it, public officials, acting in their official capacities, should be able to endorse and promote religion to their hearts’ content. Schools could tell children how and what to pray, judges could promote holy texts in courtrooms (ala the Taliban), and the courts would be powerless to protect religious liberty because they would be stripped of their power to even consider such matters.
I’d be remiss if I failed to mention that Aderholt is probably Congress’ most enthusiastic supporter of court stripping. The guy’s been at it for years.
In fact, this is Aderholt’s fourth piece of legislation to remove the federal courts’ jurisdiction. The first three dealt just with state-sponsored Ten Commandments displays, so I guess he’s getting more ambitious.
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but I wanted to add that I heard Aderholt explain his court-stripping “philosophy” to TV preacher Pat Roberton on the “700 Club” in 2001. Aderholt, who claims to have actually completed law school, insisted that the Supreme Court should not always be the final arbiter of the Constitution.
“[O]ver several decades, there has been a view that the United States Supreme Court has the final authority [on interpreting the Constitution]…. And it would be our argument, we would make the argument, the Supreme Court does not always have the final authority over the interpretation of the Constitution.”
Just as an aside, someone emailed me over the weekend to argue that I frequently highlight crazy pieces of legislation, most of which stand no chance of passing, just to make Republicans in Congress look foolish. To which I responded, “Guilty as charged.”