RLUIPA Law Was Passed Anonymously

Community View in The Journal News  June 25, 2008

Frequently lost in discussions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 2000 was the method by which the law was passed.

Both the House and the Senate used a parliamentary procedure called "unanimous consent." According to the Senate and House definitions, unanimous consent is "the practice of agreeing to an action without dissent or objection by any Member." This procedure is a way to expedite final action on a bill without a formal vote.

RLUIPA was passed by unanimous consent. We don't know the names of the members present in the House and Senate chambers for the vote. All we know is that there was a quorum present in each chamber. If your senator or representative was in office at the time, ask him or her if they had read and understood the legislation and its implications, and where he or she was when the vote was taken. In a situation where there are no comments and the outcome has been determined by the House and Senate leadership, members of Congress might as well stay home. Our representatives abdicated their responsibility and hoped that no one would notice or care.

The goal of the legislation was to reach a reasonable and constitutionally sound balance between respecting the compelling interests of government and protecting the ability of people to freely exercise their religion. It was not meant to provide developers with a free rein to create a non-accredited college and attached housing to fatten their wallets at the expense of the community. It was not meant to provide religious institutions with immunity from land-use regulation or to relieve religious institutions from applying for variances, special permits or exceptions. It was not meant for the leadership of the Town of Ramapo to use RLUIPA as a means of increasing the strength of its political machine and creating the demographics to ensure re-election. It was not meant to satisfy Ramapo builders and real estate interests.

It is unlikely that we will have in the foreseeable future a Congress with sufficient backbone to revise this legislation. The ultimate decision of whether Congress has exceeded its authority in passing this law will be made by the courts and not by the influence of builders with deep pockets.

Harvey Sigal
The writer is a Suffern resident.