Paul Weyrich
Thursday, Oct. 30, 2003

Every now and again I have several items I want to call to your attention. So, here goes:

Item 1: Religious Liberties Restoration Act

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., one of the most decent men serving in public life, has introduced the Religious Liberties Restoration Act (S 1558). The bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, where Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., holds the swing vote.

This measure is really a states' rights measure via the 10th Amendment. The Allard bill simply affirms that each state would have the right to display our national motto ("In God We Trust"), would be able to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" included, and would have the right to display the Ten Commandments.

The bill would only apply to public buildings, and that would include schools, where the Pledge is most often recited.

The way this bill accomplishes its objectives is to withdraw jurisdiction on these matters from any court inferior to the Supreme Court. Had this bill been in force, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would not have been able to issue its infamous decision declaring the Pledge unconstitutional. And in Alabama, the state Supreme Court could continue to display the Ten Commandments.

Of course I support the objectives of the bill, but in my view it is well worth consideration because of the precedent of removing courts from jurisdiction. That idea is one that deserves greater use.

No less than then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle passed a measure removing the jurisdiction of the lower courts regarding a matter which pertained mainly to South Dakota, so liberals will be hard pressed to claim that Allard is destroying the Constitution by this action. The Founders put this provision in the Constitution for precisely such matters to which this bill pertains. One would hope the Senate leadership would get on board this worthy cause.

Item 2: English as Official Language

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., no down-the-line conservative he, nevertheless has introduced H.R. 931. His bill would repeal bilingual voting requirements. He would restrict Clinton's Executive Order 13166, which requires that when federal funds are involved, information about the use of those funds must be available in any language that a citizen speaks.

The Bush Justice Department is now enforcing this executive order, combined with the Voting Rights Act. It will lead to so much chaos it will make us nostalgic for Florida in 2000.

King's bill would also make English the only official language of the USA. This is a measure that I hope the congressional leadership has the courage to take up. I say courage because the minute someone raises the issue of English being the only official language in this country he is labeled a racist.

I am convinced that is why President George W. Bush didn't repeal E.O. 13166, which even Clinton was ashamed to issue. We were positive that he would overturn this executive order, the way he did Clinton's cancellation of the Mexico City Policy and other issues as well. No, he is enforcing this hideous construction with an aggressiveness that even the Clinton White House did not display.

English First, under the capable leadership of Jim Boulet, is pushing the King measure. He provided an excellent example of why bilingual ballots are a terrible idea. In the Flushing area of New York in 2000, the Chinese ballot translated the Democrat label on all state races as Republican while Republican was translated as Democrat. The absentee ballot for state Supreme Court in English instructed voters to "vote for any three" but the Chinese ballot told voters to "vote for any five." Then later it said to vote for any three.

English must be the official language here, and those who live here must learn English just as my father had to do when he came here from Germany in 1923. And others of our relatives from Norway, Russia, Italy and Albania had to learn English. It made them part of America.

Item 3: Rating Judicial Nominees

You will recall back when the Democrats were in charge of the executive and legislative branches of government, they had the American Bar Association involved in the selection of judicial nominees. Many of us had insisted that the ABA should have no special role in picking judges, and indeed, President Bush 43 removed the ABA from this position, something that his father and Ronald Reagan had declined to do.

Well, when that happened, the Democrats howled to high heaven and insisted that the ABA ratings were the "gold standard" of judging judicial nominees.

Larson Frisby of the ABA was kind enough to provide me with the ABA ratings for the 108th Congress. The ABA has two categories for such nominees, Qualified and Well Qualified. Remember all of the circuit court nominees that liberals claim are extremist? Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, Patricia Owen, Charles Pickering, William Pryor, Claude Allen and Janice Rogers Brown come to mind. Every one of these has been judged "well qualified" either unanimously or by a substantial majority of the ABA. Not a single nominee was graded simply "qualified."

So, what do we hear from the liberals about the ABA now? Would that organization, no bastion of conservatism, really rate all of these controversial judges as "well qualified" if they were extremist ideologues? I rather doubt it. The next time you encounter a liberal senator you might ask him or her about the ABA. If they denounce the ABA as being part of the right-wing conspiracy, why, we'll just have to revise our charts.

Marion Harrison, president of Free Congress Foundation, used to be involved with the ABA. Perhaps he now secretly controls that organization.

Or perhaps the liberals are just liars.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

Editor's note:
"Treason" - Ann Coulter exposes the anti-American left: Click here now for special offer

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Executive Orders
George W. Bush
Immigration/Borders