It looks like this would cause some major heartburn, and directly opposes the nonestablishment clause - I know that specific clause talks about it at the federal level, but I have to ask, how can this NOT be overturned, if it passes? Also, if it does get passed and all, exactly WHICH version of the “christian god” gets approved? The Catholic, Protestant, Southern Baptist, or Mormon version? I didn’t know the government (at federal, state, or city level) had the right to tell people what to believe - and this is what it is all about. This is the sort of thing that used to cause holy wars and inquisitions at one time.
This so obviously* flies in the face of the Establishment Clause I am shocked they bothered. I suppose they hope the newly conservative Supreme Court will be amenable to this but I think even they will find this such an overt attack on the Establishment Clause as to have to cast it down (I would be shocked if the decision was anything but unanimous).
*- I say “obviously” but I guess my one quesion is whether the Establishment Clause applies to states? The clause says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. By that I take it to mean on the federal level and makes no mention at the state level. That said it seems to me many state level cases (frequently having to do with schools) have had the Establishment Clause applied to them.
The Establishment Clause is for the federal government only, as far as I know. State governments can do what they like. Many state constitutions contain similar language. As long as MI isn’t one of them, the bill is entirely constitutional.
With that said, what a dumb idea. How the heck do you expect to govern people if you have “your religion is false” written right into your constitution?
The establishment clause originally applied only the Federal government, and some states had official religions into the early/mid 1800s. But that clause was incorporated, so it does now apply to the states.
Everson v Board of Education, (1947) uses the Incorporation Doctrine to apply the Establishment Clause to the states. This would probably be considered settled law. Except…
Justice Thomas doesn’t think so. He doesn’t like the idea at all. Several states have decided to agree with him. Aren’t activist judges wonderful?
Why do you automatically assume that Thomas’ position is “activist” and that the contrary position is not? I think it’s more accurate to charactize Thomas’ position as one of restraint. It doesn’t create any law, but rather allows the legislature to act as it wishes. There is nothing in the text of the constitution that makes the incorporation argument objectively correct.
Frankly, this arugment about “settled law” looks more like an appeal to preserve those SCOTUS opinions that you happen to agree with. Stare decisis has its place, but it doesn’t give an automatic pass to every SCOTUS decision to never be revisited.
If I had to guess what was going on here, I would suspect that the legislator who is proposing this bill knows that it won’t pass, but wants to be able to call any legislator who votes against it “anti-Christian”. But who knows. Maybe the guy is really too stupid to know better. If it does pass, it’ll be overturned in the first federal court that hears it, and I suspect that the SCOTUS will not even agree to hear the appeal, letting the lower court decision stand.
Of course it’s always risky making predictions like that without actually seeing the text of the legislation, but if the description in the link is correct, then I think my prediction is a good one.
Text of House Concurrent Resolution 13. As a resolution, it has no effect on law (as far as I know). The closest it comes to something able to be enforced is the clause “religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state,” but I am not sure whether that would have any real effect on lawsuits filed in Federal Court, anyway.
The phrase “voluntary prayer in public schools” that precedes the above quoted clause is already acknowledged by such disparate groups as SCOTUS and the ACLU to be a true astatement, so that is simply pandering.
So far, it was referred to the Rules Committe on February 2 and Reported out of committe with a recommendation to pass on February 15, but it does not seem to have been scheduled for a vote, at this time, and has not yet been scheduled a hearing.
It has one sponsor. The co-sponsor list shows a single name followed by et al., but I cannot find how many others are included et alii and do not know whether that means there were two co-sponsors, 20 co-sponsors, or whether all bills get an et al. tacked on so that they are covered when new co-sponsors step forward.
Well, there you go. Sound anf fury, signifying nothing. A feel-good resolution that doesn’t actually create any law, but does allow the good citizens of the great state of MI to see which of their legislators are “anti-Christian”. That is, if it gets voted on.
Looks like the “nonestablishment clause” is safe afterall.
Well, we could go for two directions on this. The bizarre, Bork-like interpretations of the law of Justice Thomas, or a discussion on Stare Decisis, John. Your call.
which Rep. Sater sponsored. It’s a House resolution saying that the Missouri House doesn’t think that prayer in schools or nativity displays on public property violate the first amendment.
I suspected there were ways to prevent this sort of thing from happening, thanks there.
With the upcoming 2006 elections coming soon, maybe this is nothing more tha pre-election rabble rousing. Author a bill and then hope it fails, so one can then say “See that? I tried. Vote for me”.
Sound and fury, signifying nothing. I’m bothered though, that any politician would use such a “bigoted” (can’t think of a better word) tactic, and worse that he thinks people will (and they would) buy into it.
That’s not the issue I was bringing up. It was unclear to me by what principle you classified Thomas’ position on the establishment clause as being “activist”, and yet (presumably) you wouldn’t consider the court’s opinion in Everson v. Board of Education to be “activist”. Can you explain that?
Yes, they would. The idea of complete seperation of Church and State is not a very popular opinion in the US. It’s surprising just how much support a resolution like this would have in the country as a whole and in certain states in particular. I have to wonder if the Establishment Clause (as currently interpreted by the SCOTUS) would be ratified today if we had a referendum on it.
Actually, I would, all things considered. I also think the word has comparatively little meaning.
Any judge who makes a ruling that involves interpretation of laws to fit a situation slightly different from those they were designed for can be considered activist. That said, I think the partial incorporation doctrine is a bit, well, half-arsed. Full or none, is what I say. I also think the 9th amendment is not meaningless, and that the modern executive, judicial, and legislative branches need whuppins with hickory sticks.
Preferably by someone yelling “I told you not to be stupid, you moron!”
