Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman
and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut and William
Paterson of New Jersey and James Madison and
George Mason of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson is not
found in the record as having participated. (The De-
bates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United
States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Seaton, 1834],
Vol. I, pp. 440–948, June 8–September 24, 1789.)
(15) George Mason, a member of the Constitu-
tional Convention and recognized as ‘‘The Father of
the Bill of Rights’’, submitted this proposal for the
wording of the First Amendment: ‘‘All men have an
equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exer-
cise of religion, according to the dictates of con-
science; and that no particular sect or society of
Christians ought to be favored or established by law
in preference to others.’’ (Kate Mason Rowland, The
Life of George Mason [New York: G.P. Putnam’s
Sons, 1892,] Vol I, p. 244.)
(16) The Father of the Constitution, James
Madison, submitted the following wording for the
First Amendment: ‘‘The civil rights of none shall be
abridged on account of religious belief or worship,
nor shall any national religion be established.’’ (The
Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the
United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Season,
1834,] Vol. I, p. 451, James Madison, June 8,
1789.)
(17) The true intent of the First Amendment is
reflected by the proposals submitted by Fisher
Ames, George Mason and James Madison and the
wording finally adopted.
(18) Justice Joseph Story, considered the Fa-
ther of American Jurisprudence, stated in his Com-
mentaries on the Constitution: ‘‘The real object of
the [First A]mendment was not to countenance,
much less to advance Mohometanism [sp], or Juda-
ism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to
exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to pre-
vent any national ecclesiastical establishment which
should give to a hierarchy [a denominational council]
the exclusive patronage of the national government.
(Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of
the United States [Boston; Hilliard, Gray and Com-
pany, 1833], p. 728, par. 1871.)
(19) Proof that the intent of the framers of the
First Amendment did not intend for the Federal
Government to restrict the exercise of free speech in
religious matters in civic dialog is found in various
statements by George Washington, who was Presi-
dent when the Congress adopted the First Amend-
ment. The following is found in his ‘‘Farewell Ad-
dress’’: ‘‘ . . . of all the dispositions and habits
which lead to political prosperity, religion and moral-
ity are indispensable supports. In vain would that
man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor
to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.’’
(George Washington, Address of George Wash-
ington, 
President 
of 
the 
United
States. . . . Preparatory to his Declination [Balti-
more: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796], pp.
22–23.
(20) James Wilson was a very active member of
the Convention and was later appointed by President
George Washington as an original Justice on the
United States Supreme Court where he coauthored
America’s first legal text on the Constitution. Wilson
never mentioned a ‘‘separation of church and state’’.
To the contrary, he declared the correlation between
religion and civil laws: Far from being rivals or en-
emies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and
mutual assistants. (James Wilson, The Works of
James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor. Philadelphia;
Bronson and Chauncey, 1804. Vol. I, pp. 104–106.)
(21) It was Fisher Ames of Massachusetts who
provided, on the 20th of August, 1789, the final
wording for the First Amendment as passed by the
House of Representatives. Fisher Ames, who should
be considered the foremost authority on the intent of
the First Amendment, never spoke of a separation
of church and state. (Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher
Ames, Boston; T.B. Wait & Co. 1809, p. 134, 135.)
(22) Because the Court does not seem to be
disposed to correct this egregious error, it is incum-
bent upon the Congress of the United States to per-
form its duty to support and defend the Constitution
of the United States, by the use of its authority to
apply checks and balances to other branches of the
government, when usurpations and the exercise of
excesses of power are evident. The Congress must,
then, take the appropriate steps to correct egregious
problem.
SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-RELATED
CASES FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JU-
RISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 85 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing new section:
‘‘§ 1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious free-
dom-related cases
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The district courts of the United
States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of
the Virgin Islands, and the District Court for the North-
ern Mariana Islands shall not have jurisdiction to hear or
determine any religious freedom-related case.
‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the
term ‘religious freedom-related case’ means any action in
which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision re-
lating to religious freedom that is contained in a State
or Federal statute is at issue.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
‘‘1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases.’’.
SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-RELATED
CASES FROM FEDERAL CLAIMS COURT JU-
RISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 91 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing new section:
‘‘§ 1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious free-
dom-related cases
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The United States Court of Fed-
eral Claims shall not have jurisdiction to hear or deter-
mine any religious freedom-related case.
‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the
term ‘religious freedom-related case’ means any action in
which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision re-
lating to religious freedom that is contained in a State
or Federal statute is at issue.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 91 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
‘‘1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases.’’.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to
cases filed on or after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Æ