In any event, judicial deference to legislative acts, performed within its bona fided authority, is well entrenched under the separation of powers doctrine.

The court here concluded that this nonbinding declaration, whatever one thinks of it on its merits, is within the legislature's authority.

1st Amendment


Does not the Constitution also state that the people have the right of redress??
It does not state the means so I would assume they could use the courts for that means

Clearly the court disagrees with you.

that uses the Bible for their religion

And the court is wrong ............

his own decision.

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2012, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)

legislative noncontroversial resolutions meeting constitutional requirements?

As I understand it a noncontroversial resolutions carry no force of law.

it is anything BUT noncontroversial. But I'm sure you will hear none of it. If the circumstances were changed to a "year of the Koran" or some other non-christian "noncontroversy", your opinion would be much, much different, LaRed.

A "noncontroversial resolution" is a resolution that carries no force of law. It's a technical term It's an empty gesture by a state legislative body as far as the constitution is involved.

Unless I am missing the part where you agree that this is anything but uncontroversial and unconstitutional, and well, just plain wrong. Did I miss that part of your post or were you arguing against that idea?

The judge made a legally correct decision.

1. Politicians will continue to pander whenever, however, and forever in any way possible.

2. What the PA legislative body did was not unconstitutional.

3. Outside of a dislike of pandering I think proclaiming a "year of the bible" by the PA legislators is not a problem.

4. Opinions are not arguments.

for any suit needs be grounded in material issue, and should legislators require nothing noxious of me, I lack place to stand in complaint

clearly very unhappy about it.