MMario -

So if I burn a cross on your front lawn, and the police chief says it was "god's will" I can't be prosecuted? And if the police refuse to arrest someone who beats up an "illegal immigrant" because "god doesn't want them here," and the state court says "that's okay, 'cause they're illegal" there's no appeal to SCOTUS?

The problem is that the states, and state courts, have frequently accepted things found by the SCOTUS to be "unconstitutional" and/or otherwise "not valid law." If there is to be one "final authority" then the authority must lie in the same place for all matters.

The proposed amendment effectively says that the state legislature (and/or courts) can say that anything - such as mandatory public school prayer to "the right God" - already ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS - can be declared invalid at lower level and the Supreme Court is prohibited even from hearings on it.

Language is included that overturns all prior decisions of the Supreme Court "not based on common law prior to the Constitution." That includes a whole lot of existing law - but not "the Bible" of course.

The proposed amendment also provides for the removal of any member of the judiciary who "questions anything done in the name of religion," and allows any agent of any public authority" to cite "God's law" as "supreme and superceding all man-made law" - at least Brownback has said so.

On the original subject:

The link provided by Donuel in the opening post is to S.1959, introduced in the Senate by Maine Repuplican Senator Sarah Collins in August 2007. The link to "comment," by jeffp in the second post, is to H.R.1955, introduced in the House by California Democratic Representative Jane Harman.

Since the House bill was introduced several months prior (March 2007) to the separate Senate bill (August 2007), the Senate version appears to be a "political knee-jerk," as normal procedure would be for the Senate to consider the House bill, under its House Name/Designation, after passage by the House. H.R.1955 passed the House vote in October 2007.

There are some small(?) but significant differences between the two (literacy of the respective authors possibly being one?) and discussion should be careful to be sure that we're all talking about the same piece of trashpaper. Since the Senate can incorporate changes prior to their vote, subject to reconcilement usually by a joint committee, it's difficult to say what final outcome may be seen.

Neither bill appears - that I can find - in the Active Bills List for the Senate.

Since the House bill proposed an amendment to the Homeland Security Act, any "consideration" dealing with that act could sneak in the changes indicated without separate consideration of the bill as passed by the House, of course.

John