Does anybody recall that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act was Unconstitutional?

[TexasTowelie]

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. The bill was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey on March 11, 1993.[1] The bill was passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. But it continues to be applied to the federal government, for instance in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

[PoliticAverse]

1. Yes, the federal government is limited in what it can make state governments do.

Note that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was amended to remove the Court's objections.

[Arugula Latte]

2. That was yet another stinker of a move by Bill Clinton.

[MFrohike]

3. Ah, City of Boerne

Perhaps the greatest overreach ever, which is saying a lot, by the court. It was a clear sign that the court actually bought the hype that it's the "ultimate arbiter" of the constitution. I know that's a popular view, but it's the stupidest thing one could say with a straight face about a government with three co-equal branches.