alarming new law?

[Steven Jamar]

I pretty much put this into the "get a life" category on all sides.  If
Congress wants to do these things, they seem harmless enough.  And if some
people want to get vexed about it, well it is just their day being ruined.

I don't like these sorts of resolutions any more than I like prayer opening
city council meetings or "in god we trust" showing up on money.  And I
consider them bad manners to a small degree.  But all in all, I think we are
better off not paying much attention to these things and letting them
continue as an exercise of the freedom of religion exercise side.

So, criticizing them as insensitive seems to be about the right response.
Lawsuits and constitutionalizing it or getting alarmed by these actions
seems a bit much.

These are not schools or school children or statutes or binding anythings.

BTW, I don't buy Linden's point that the fact that something is in the
"whereas" clause shields it from criticism.

Steve (celebrating the season of buy-presents-for-athiest-children-day)
Jamar


On Dec 16, 2007 9:51 AM, <RJLipkin at aol.com> wrote:

>           I'm curious whether "non-binding resolutions" are authorized by
> the Constitution or the rules of each House or both or neither.
>
> Bobby
>
> Robert Justin Lipkin
> Professor of Law
> Widener University School of Law
> Delaware
> *
> *Ratio Juris, Contributor:  http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/*
> Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief
> http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> See AOL's top rated recipes<http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004>and easy
> ways to stay in shape<http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003>for winter.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>



-- 
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071216/effc2121/attachment.htm