Gov. Jeff Landry (R) signed the Republican-led bill Wednesday that got some bipartisan support in the Louisiana Senate to display the Ten Commandments in all public elementary and high school classes.
The Courts have made it clear- you can not do this. EXCEPT as part of a historical display including things like the Code of Hammurabi, etc,
And have allowed athletic coaches to require* their players to participate in the sectarian form of prayer of the coach’s choice.
I’m guessing that if and when this gets to SCOTUS—just as with Roe–“super-precedents” will be discarded quickly, easily, and with tons of self-righteousness.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
I haven’t read it, and IANAL, but this law seems to be respecting an establishment of religion. And Amendment I was fully incorporated against the states in 1947, which (I think) means Louisiana’s congress must abide by Amendment I.
Does the new law specify that the Ten Commandments must be prominently displayed? I’m thinking it would probably fit nicely beneath a pull-down map. I’m also wondering if the law specifies that the language has to be English. It would be interesting to display them in Greek or Latin.
I have no compunction about subverting this nonsense. The town where I used to live had the Ten Commandments displayed in a city park. A tourist complained and threatened a lawsuit., so the city sold the 3’ x 3’ piece of land the Ten Commandments rested on to a local beneficent organization.
Unlike Roe v Wade, which had an admittedly weak legal foundation, the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” clause is pretty unambiguous (and the recognition of the prohibitions against government action also apply to the states). An “originalist” Supreme Court, as self-identified conservatives like to describe the current makeup, would reject this out of hand. This Supreme Court, on the other hand, is pretty stocked up with people who seem to regard their religious beliefs as foundational to and superseding the clear wording of the Constitution, so I expect some complex legal gyrations to support a majority decision against striking this law, and apologists insisting that it isn’t the Supreme Court’s place to strike down ‘bad law’ but merely to dutifully interpret whatever legislatures pass into law.
Of course, this is all part and parcel of the growing movement of Christian Nationalists who want to ‘return’ the nation to the Fundamentalist Christian bedrock they believe it to have been founded upon, actual history be damned. Chris Hedges has written extensively about this as being a clear sign of nascent fascism under the guise of religious belief.
Except if you tried this in Louisiana you might literally get crucified for it.
The court has already laid the basis for this. They are now into “traditions.” If the Ten Commandments was in a classroom in the early years of the republic then they should be there now they would (probably) claim. I posted this link before, but it applies here too. It’s a good article.
Legally speaking, Spectrum WT had a strong case. Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects speech on public university campuses, “no matter how offensive” and despite “conventions of decency,” as two decisions put it. Wendler acknowledged that he was refusing to allow the drag show to take place “even when the law of the land appears to require it.”
But the lawsuit landed on the docket of Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee to the federal bench in Amarillo who is the author of several sweeping arch-conservative rulings. And in the drag-show case, Judge Kacsmaryk had a new tool, supplied by the Supreme Court. Known as the “history and tradition” test, the legal standard has been recently adopted by the court’s conservative majority to allow judges to set aside modern developments in the law to restore the precedents of the distant past.
The conservative justices applied the history-and-tradition test in three major rulings decided in the space of a week in June 2022. First, they struck down a New York restriction on gun ownership for being out of line with the nation’s “historical tradition” around regulating guns. Next, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a conservative majority ended the constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade because it was not “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” Finally, the court held that a public high school’s decision to let go of a football coach for praying with a crowd he gathered at midfield was out of line with “historical practices and understandings” of religious freedom.
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and holding a bible.” - Sinclair Lewis (I think)
I don’t think so, and that would be a good out. (As others have said: Hebrew would be an appropriate language.)
However, rather than just give in to a clearly unconstitutional law by pulling that trick, I think we’ll see the ACLU and possibly others taking the ‘go to court’ route.
Prayer was never banned in public schools, as long as it was voluntary and not teacher-led. William Murray, who was at the center of this case, has said on the record that the prayer he had to recite at school WAS unconstitutional, and he became a born-again Christian some years later.
But as for this Louisiana mandate: Which translation of the Bible should be used? How big must the poster be, and where should it be displayed? What fonts would be allowed, or banned? What language should they be in? And the most important question: Would the kids be able to read it in the first place?
I remember seeing an interview with a Congressperson, many years ago, who said he’d had people approach him and say, “I believe children should start every day with prayer!” He would reply, and I do too, “Then you pray with your children over breakfast.”
I haven’t been able to find a link, but I remember a story about a Ten Commandments monument that had long been in a county courthouse, and with much controversy, it was moved out into the yard. The story disappeared pretty quickly after it was revealed that an architect discovered that the monument was heavier than the floor could indefinitely support it.
(And what about the Bible people get sworn in on?)
I remember when Kyrsten Sinema had Mike Pence swear her in on a law book, while she was made up like Marilyn Monroe and wore stiletto heels. He was, like, “Do I have to do this?” (Ms. Sinema turned out to be something of a village idiot, but I had to admire her for that.)
Look, we have three liberals and two originalist Conservatives- Roberts and Gorsuch.
I suspect they will just say you have to add some historical references to other laws or something- in line with prior decisions. I mean, no doubt the Ten C are historical.
Again, the new law does not allow any such shenanigans.