Constitutional scholar denounces the "Public Expression of Religion Act"

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

link

---------------------------------

Some notable Republicans who voted AYE

Rob Simmons (CT-02)
Nancy Johnson (CT-05)
Peter King (NY-03)
Deborah Pryce (OH-15)
Heather Wilson (NM-01)
Jim Gerlach (PA-06)
Curt Weldon (PA-07)
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
Charlie Dent (PA-15)

Some notable Republicans who voted NAY
Wayne Gilchrest (MD-01)
Christopher Shays (CT-04) (run, run, run away!)
Mark Kirk (IL-10)

[Frodo]

Church-State Wall advocates need not worry as this is a stunt designed primarily to bring out the base and not intended to be seriously considered for being made into law -this ultimately will not pass muster in the Senate anyway. 

[Nym90]

I would vote no. I strongly believe in seperation of church and state and this is a ham-fisted attempt to get around that. There's no reason why lawsuits involving these types of cases should be treated fundamentally differently than other suits.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Another 26 Frodo style Democraps sold out on this bill.
Usally bills that get 244 votes in the House pass the Senate.

[MODU]

First of all, let's take a look at what the Act actually is, and not what is stated in the overtly biased report cited:

"H.R. 2679: Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005"

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to prevent the use of the legal system in a manner that extorts money from State and local governments, and the Federal Government, and inhibits such governments' constitutional actions under the first, tenth, and fourteenth amendments.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.

(a) CIVIL ACTION    FOR    DEPRIVATION   OF   RIGHTS. --10 Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--
  (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before the first sentence; and
  (2) by adding at the end the following:
     ``(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section are limited
     to injunctive and declaratory relief where the deprivation consists of a
     violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment
     of religion, including, but not limited to, a violation resulting from--
     ``(1) a veterans' memorial's containing religious words or imagery;
     ``(2) a public building's containing religious words or imagery;
     ``(3) the presence of religious words or imagery in the official seals of 
     the several States and the political subdivisions thereof; or
     ``(4) the chartering of Boy Scout units by components of States and 
     political subdivisions, and the Boy Scouts' using public buildings of
     States and political subdivisions.''.

(b) ATTORNEY'S FEES.--Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.''.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion brought against the United States or any agency or any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity in any court having jurisdiction over such claim, and the remedies with respect to such a claim shall be limited to injunctive and declaratory relief.

(b) DEFINITION.--As used in this section, the term ``a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion'' includes, but is not limited to, a claim of injury resulting from--
  (1) a veterans' memorial's containing religious words or imagery;
  (2) a Federal building's containing religious words or imagery;
  (3) the presence of religious words or imagery in the official seal of the
  United States and in its currency and official Pledge; or
  (4) the chartering of Boy Scout units by components of the Armed Forces
  of the United States and by other public entities, and the Boy Scouts'
  using Department of Defense and other public installations.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and apply to any case that--
(1) is pending on such date of enactment; or
(2) is commenced on or after such date of enactment.  Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 2006.

Yup, like I thought, the bill isn't some doom-and-gloom piece of legislation as the author of the article makes it sound to be.  Basically, it ends the numerous lawsuits from people/organizations who are "offended" by various things.  Maybe LA will reverse themselves and put their original seal back on everything now, and the ACLU will stop harassing the Boy Scouts.

[Beet]

First of all, let's take a look at what the Act actually is, and not what is stated in the overtly biased report cited:

"H.R. 2679: Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005"

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to prevent the use of the legal system in a manner that extorts money from State and local governments, and the Federal Government, and inhibits such governments' constitutional actions under the first, tenth, and fourteenth amendments.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.

(a) CIVIL ACTION    FOR    DEPRIVATION   OF   RIGHTS. --10 Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--
  (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before the first sentence; and
  (2) by adding at the end the following:
     ``(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section are limited
     to injunctive and declaratory relief where the deprivation consists of a
     violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment
     of religion, including, but not limited to, a violation resulting from--
     ``(1) a veterans' memorial's containing religious words or imagery;
     ``(2) a public building's containing religious words or imagery;
     ``(3) the presence of religious words or imagery in the official seals of 
     the several States and the political subdivisions thereof; or
     ``(4) the chartering of Boy Scout units by components of States and 
     political subdivisions, and the Boy Scouts' using public buildings of
     States and political subdivisions.''.

(b) ATTORNEY'S FEES.--Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.''.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion brought against the United States or any agency or any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity in any court having jurisdiction over such claim, and the remedies with respect to such a claim shall be limited to injunctive and declaratory relief.

(b) DEFINITION.--As used in this section, the term ``a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion'' includes, but is not limited to, a claim of injury resulting from--
  (1) a veterans' memorial's containing religious words or imagery;
  (2) a Federal building's containing religious words or imagery;
  (3) the presence of religious words or imagery in the official seal of the
  United States and in its currency and official Pledge; or
  (4) the chartering of Boy Scout units by components of the Armed Forces
  of the United States and by other public entities, and the Boy Scouts'
  using Department of Defense and other public installations.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and apply to any case that--
(1) is pending on such date of enactment; or
(2) is commenced on or after such date of enactment.  Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 2006.

Yup, like I thought, the bill isn't some doom-and-gloom piece of legislation as the author of the article makes it sound to be.

I don't see anything in here that contradicts the Washington Post article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess people who are offended at constitutional violations should have their lawsuits ended.

[MODU]

I don't see anything in here that contradicts the Washington Post article.

According to the article:  "Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion."

The bill has nothing to do with that.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

which covers

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's review the specific claims
(1) Does it protect government actions? The statute applies to "state and local officials" and "any agency or any official of the United States." So yes.
(2) Are the actions unconstitutional? By definition of the statute itself, it only applies to constitutional violations. Yes.
(3) Do those government actions advance religion? The statute only applies to cases where relief is sought on the clause "against the establishment of religion." Yes.

Now can we string a sentence together? If so, Q.E.D.

[MODU]

However, most of these court claims made in modern times are not violations of the first amendment, since they are not acts of establishing a state religion.  As such, there should not be any payouts resulting from these cases.  This bill serves a detraction to the ACLU-type lawsuits based on "being offended." 

[Nym90]

The bottom line is that it's a bill designed to subvert the courts. Basically the purpose of it is that the sponsors believe the current interpretation of the first amendment to be wrong and want to weaken those judicial rulings by any available means.

I see no reason why court cases with regards to the first amendment should not be treated equally with all other court cases in terms of being able to recover court costs. This bill would act as a huge deterrent against these types of suits, and whether the suits are legitimate or not is for the judges and juries who are have the greatest knowledge of the particular circumstances of the cases to decide (not to mention in the case of judges, extensive legal training), not for legislators to decide.

[Beet]

However, most of these court claims made in modern times are not violations of the first amendment, since they are not acts of establishing a state religion.

Oh, I am sorry MODU, that your personal opinion, which would effectively permit Congress to set up a state religion through direct financing and legal controls on individual behavior as long as they did not "officially" establish a state religion, is now authority enough to suppress all claims based on this clause of the Constitution

[MODU]

However, most of these court claims made in modern times are not violations of the first amendment, since they are not acts of establishing a state religion.

Oh, I am sorry MODU, that your personal opinion, which would effectively permit Congress to set up a state religion through direct financing and legal controls on individual behavior as long as they did not "officially" establish a state religion, is now authority enough to suppress all claims based on this clause of the Constitution

It's a shared opinion.  Too long has our freedom of religion been perverted into freedom FROM religion by groups like the ACLU, to the extent that they want to remove historical markers, symbols, and seals off of state property (like the crosses from the LA seal) or unfairly punish groups like the Boy Scouts . . . all under the premise of the first amendment, when they in fact have nothing to do with it.  They are trying to strip religion from society, which I could argue is more of a first amendment violation than most of their recent lawsuits.

[Beet]

However, most of these court claims made in modern times are not violations of the first amendment, since they are not acts of establishing a state religion.

Oh, I am sorry MODU, that your personal opinion, which would effectively permit Congress to set up a state religion through direct financing and legal controls on individual behavior as long as they did not "officially" establish a state religion, is now authority enough to suppress all claims based on this clause of the Constitution

It's a shared opinion.  Too long has our freedom of religion been perverted into freedom FROM religion by groups like the ACLU, to the extent that they want to remove historical markers, symbols, and seals off of state property (like the crosses from the LA seal) or unfairly punish groups like the Boy Scouts . . . all under the premise of the first amendment, when they in fact have nothing to do with it.  They are trying to strip religion from society, which I could argue is more of a first amendment violation than most of their recent lawsuits.

I believe those are questions best settled on an individual basis, in the realm of jurisprudence, and not suppressed financially in a blanket manner by Congress.

[Speed of Sound]

*shudders* A last ditch effort by conservative Christians to keep hold of thier country. I was kinda hoping we would never have to get to the 'take to the streets' stage, but if we cant go to the courts, where else is there? Bring it on Religious Right, bring it on.

thefactor is completely right of course. This is a chance to trounce the Establishment clause and make mince meat out of minority religions. Luckily, the ACLU, AA, and IFA have alot of cash under thier belt to pay lawyers anyway, assuming this piece of trash isnt overturned. (which would require blind folded judges that are beaten by the RR with bats then bribed)


"Never confuse a single defeat with a final defeat."

--F. Scott Fitzgerald