4776 vs. 1776

Last Tuesday, U.S. Representative Mike Sodrel (R-Ind., 9th District) introduced House Resolution 4776, a bill seeking to prevent federal courts from reviewing or ruling on speech employed in state legislatures -- excluding witnesses and admissions of criminal guilt, treason or breach of the peace. This bill would also prevent courts from using federal funding to enforce any such rulings. \nThe bill's inspiration was a November ruling by U.S. District Judge David Hamilton, barring lawmakers in the Indiana House of Representatives, or invited guests, from advancing any \nspecific faith in House invocations -- such as naming Jesus Christ in the course of a House prayer. Sodrel has labeled this ruling "judicial activism" and a restriction of legislators' free speech rights, which makes his bill necessary.\nBut here at the editorial board ranch and resort, there's things we just can't get past -- like where the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." Or in Article III, Section 2, where it says "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority ..." In short, we might not be legal scholars, but we're pretty sure Sodrel's bill is unconstitutional. And the American Civil Liberties Union agrees with us.\nThe thing is, we're not talking about individuals' free speech rights here. For example, no one is saying that Christian members of Congress can't say a prayer to Jesus before tucking themselves in at night, or even mention their personal beliefs on the campaign trail (not that they ever do this -- cough, cough). Instead, it's about what our government -- in the form of our legislature -- says and does. When it takes to the floor, members of Congress aren't just citizens, they're the legal embodiment of their constituents -- they're our representatives. And they have to represent all of us, regardless of religious belief.\nThis is no legal technicality spawned by generations of interpretation -- 4776 is contrary to the founding fathers' very intentions. While visiting Newport, R. I., in 1790, President George Washington was welcomed by the faithful of Touro Synagogue -- the oldest Jewish congregation in the country. Thanking them, Washington wrote: "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support"