Against religious conduct released and stated in violation of the free exercise clause under Trinity Lutheran. The Montana Supreme Court disagrees and that court held boring schools did not violate the federal constitution. This board should reverse that judgment. Even respondents now concede that excluding Religious Schools from the program is unconstitutional they are viewed that the court avoided this discrimination by invalidating the entire program. This is wrong. The only reason the court invalidated the program was because it included Religious Schools and the courts remedy did not cure its discriminatory judgment nor should the remedy shielded judgment from review. Petitioners brought this lawsuit because they were denied scholarships based on religion and they are still being denied scholarships based on religion. If the court had shut down the program because it included muslim schools or africanamerican schools, theres no question that would be unconstitutional. We ask you t
Lead the senate in prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Eternal god, the author of unity, remind our lawmakers that people accomplish laudable goals more through unity than division. May our senators remember that all of us are more effective than any one of us. As our legislators pursue effectiveness in their work, give them the wisdom to forge alliances that make the difficult become easy and the impossible become probable. In their search for common purposes, inspire them with the conviction that nothing is impossible for those who believe. We pray in your omnipotent name. Amen. The president pro tempore please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Grassley madam president. The presiding officer the senator from iowa is recognized. Mr. Grassley i ask to speak in morning business for one minute. The pres
Senator from montana. Mr. Daines mr. President , americans want their privacy protected. For far too long the patriot act and the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, commonly referred to as fisa has been used to trample the Civil Liberties of american citizens. For montanans the right to privacy is so fundamental it is enshrined in our own constitution. In fact, very few states have such protections, but the drafters of the Montana Constitution recognized that privacy was essential to exercise all of the other freedoms that we hold so dear. The fill the u. S. House has sent us does have some good reforms. It has some good provisions in it, including a provision from my bipartisan bill with my colleague from oregon, senator wyden, called the safeguarding americans private records act which would revoke the now terminated call Detail Program which secretly collected data on our cell phones, our land lines as well as private conversations. But the house bill fails to enact real reforms
For far too long the patriot act and the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, referred to as fisa, have been used to trample the Civil Liberties of american citizens. For montanans, the right to privacy is so fundamental it is enshrined in our own constitution. In fact, very few states have such protections, but the drafters of the Montana Constitution recognized that privacy was essential to exercise all of the of the freedoms that we hold so dear. The bill the u. S. House does have some good reforms. It has some provisions in it, including a provision from my bipartisan bill with my colleague from oregon, senator wyden, called the safeguarding americans private records act, which would revoke the now terminated call Detail Program which secretly collected data on our cell phones, our land lines, as well as private conversations. But the house bill fails to enact real reforms to fisa that will actually protect a the privacy of the American People. And we saw what a handful of scornf
That is the president a few moments ago. We will have live coverage of the president when he gets to and these other big separation of powers cases. They come along every few years. They sometimes can feel like the real nuts and bolts. What i like about these case is they explain why business groups and others would not bring separation of powers of they cannot get meaningful relief. Interestingose were briefs to parse through. It is going to be argued on the 15th. A lot of folks are going to argue. I am interested to see how much the court wants to focus on the employed womans and stuff versus the stuff. I think the court is going to be skeptical of what the First Circuit date on the backside. In the last couple of terms, they have been skeptical of a lot have Agency Actions that have been more willing to put the government to its paces on respecting separation of powers and checking its boxes. Said, there is a practical reality that some of these cases feel like the old winstar case