Last week the Georgia Senate approved a resolution in favor of allowing the Ten Commandments to be posted in public places.
After Nov. 2, many evangelical Republicans were expecting the GOP -- set to begin its historic first session in full control of Georgia's government since Reconstruction -- to revisit one of their favorite conservative social measures, that being a law to shield county courthouses that choose to display the Ten Commandments. Many political subscribed to this expectation also.
Despite such thinking, some thought that the GOP lawmakers would not take up a Ten Commandments bill for several reasons.
First, it was pushed last year by a Republican lawmaker Rep. Lynn Westmoreland who had left the Legislature for Congress. Second, the proposal would call for the state Attorney General to pick up the defense tab for any lawsuit filed over a Ten Commandments display, an idea some may support in principle but not want to enact given the state's budget situation. Finally, state lawmakers would be inclined to sit back on the issue now until the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on a case as it had agreed to do. (See 12-29-04 post.)
Well, if we are not going to try to pass -- make that pass -- legislation, how about a compromise. Such happened this past Thursday in the Senate.
The upper chamber overwhelmingly approved a resolution urging Georgians to support the posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Of course as a resolution, the measure doesn't have the force of law.
Thursday's 41-8 vote probably was the only action the Legislature will take this year on what was a burning issue during the 2004 General Assembly session.
In Georgia, a lawsuit filed against Barrow County by the ACLU over a Ten Commandments display is on hold pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on two cases argued before the justices last month.
The resolution approved Thursday was sponsored by freshman Sen. Nancy Schaefer, R-Turnerville, who has long been active in religious conservative causes.
"We are a nation founded on biblical principles written in the Ten Commandments," she told her Senate colleagues. "This is what makes America different from totalitarian nations."
"If you look at our Constitution and at our Declaration of Independence, you will not find separation of church and state anywhere," added Sen. John Douglas, R-Covington.
[Say what Senator? Do you not consider the first words of the first amendment of the Constitution that begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to be part of the Constitution, Senator? Oh, this is just an amendment, and doesn't count. OK, I see.]
"Yet, we have organizations that use that phrase regularly not only to try to prevent display of the Ten Commandments but in other areas of public life."
Before passing the resolution, senators rejected two amendments proposed by Democrats.
Sen. Robert Brown, D-Macon, sought to encourage judges interested in displaying the Ten Commandments to make sure such displays are at least a 72-point font size.
"If you're going to put it in a courthouse, it ought to be large enough to read," he said.
Sen. Steen Miles, D-Decatur, proposed an amendment suggested by one of her constituents in Rockdale County requiring all churches, synagogues and mosques to display the Ten Commandments.
"He suggested that charity begins at home and spreads abroad," she said.
Sen. Michael Meyer von Bremen, D-Albany, one of the eight senators who voted against the resolution, said he objected to politically charged wording in the measure suggesting that some judges have issued "unlawful" rulings in First Amendment cases.
"I'm not going to accuse our courts of being unlawful," said Meyer von Bremen, who noted that he has supported Ten Commandments resolutions in past sessions.
"We had these for six years, and I've never seen this kind of language."
Because the resolution simply expresses the sentiment of the Senate, it will not be sent to the House. Thus, Thursday's vote was the final action on it.
(3-18-05 article in The Albany Herald by Dave Williams.)
_______________
How is this thing going to come out?
As we know, the United States Supreme Court 25 years or so ago held that a state law requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in each classroom in a state was unconstitutional. That decision led courts to rule that the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms was unconstitutional (as a violation of what is referred to as the Establishment Clause part of the first amendment).
As noted, the issue of Ten Commandments is now before the Supreme Court again, and be prepared for the law to change. It is coming.
_______________
Regular readers of this blog might recall that in so voting, many Democratic Senators were following the advice that I set forth in my 12-27-04 post entitled "When the Dean speaks, the Democratic Party better listen, Part II. Sid's response to the Dean concerning the issues the Dean raised." This post set forth various positions I think our party must espouse if we are to return to power, including the following:
And truthfully Sir, we are not going to get beaten up and run over by making a grand stand opposing those who what to post the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Our position on this is that it is up to the courts to determine, and we expert that this matter will be resolved by the courts sooner rather than later.
We do agree with you that we all would do better if we tried harder to live by the biblical admonitions contained therein.
And also, and even though you did not mention this Sir, please know that we strongly resist taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and hopefully some of us will have the courage to publicly say so when this comes up again before the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. If the national Party takes a different stand, so be it.
_______________
My 10-16-04 post set forth how our appeallate courts are divided as follows:
We learned a couple of weeks ago that the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether displays of the Ten Commandments on public property violate the Constitution's separation of church and state.
Too bad that we won't know until after the election. Much like gay rights and keeping the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments displays have become a hot-button issue in the culture wars, pitting social conservatives who support such displays against the ACLU and other groups (you know, such as groups that oppose family values according to the GOP and Christian Coalition; you got it).
(For the record, posting the Ten Commandments on government property has been found to be constitutional by three circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals, with the federal appeals courts in another three -- including Atlanta -- having ruled that displaying the commandments in public buildings isn't permitted under most circumstances.)
But while we will learn something about displaying the Ten Commandments, we won't on the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. When the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to rule on the merits of the constitutional challenge on the words from the nut in California, we might get a hint of things to come.
Three justices addressed the First Amendment's Establishment Clause issue. Not surprisingly, Rehnquist and Thomas found no Establishment Clause problems. But more interestingly, O'Conner concluded that the Pledge's references to God are ceremonial deism and "simply not religious in character."
I am an advocate for keeping "under God" in the Pledge, a big advocate. But isn't it interesting how the GOP et al. decide who is and who is not an activist judge (or in this case, justice).
Here, since the Philistines like this reasoning of Justice O'Conner, we know there is no way she could ever be considered to be activist justice, although I sort of think she is engaging in active reasoning, whatever in the hell active reasoning is. Innovative anyway.
Deferring again to the wisdom of the Dean, on my Web site I noted:
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM -- My friend Bill Shipp recently wrote that "[a]s nearly as we can tell, a 'judicially activist' jurist is one who rules against your wishes. Example: Justice Sears opined in a lawsuit brought by Gov. Sonny Perdue that the governor could not legally assume duties of the attorney general. She also once ruled in favor of a lesbian in a domestic relations case, and she voted with the majority of the court in striking down the state's sodomy law. Such activities obviously cast her as a judicial activist, according to Gov. Perdue and his allies in the anti-gay Christian Coalition."
Despite such thinking, some thought that the GOP lawmakers would not take up a Ten Commandments bill for several reasons.
First, it was pushed last year by a Republican lawmaker Rep. Lynn Westmoreland who had left the Legislature for Congress. Second, the proposal would call for the state Attorney General to pick up the defense tab for any lawsuit filed over a Ten Commandments display, an idea some may support in principle but not want to enact given the state's budget situation. Finally, state lawmakers would be inclined to sit back on the issue now until the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on a case as it had agreed to do. (See 12-29-04 post.)
Well, if we are not going to try to pass -- make that pass -- legislation, how about a compromise. Such happened this past Thursday in the Senate.
The upper chamber overwhelmingly approved a resolution urging Georgians to support the posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Of course as a resolution, the measure doesn't have the force of law.
Thursday's 41-8 vote probably was the only action the Legislature will take this year on what was a burning issue during the 2004 General Assembly session.
In Georgia, a lawsuit filed against Barrow County by the ACLU over a Ten Commandments display is on hold pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on two cases argued before the justices last month.
The resolution approved Thursday was sponsored by freshman Sen. Nancy Schaefer, R-Turnerville, who has long been active in religious conservative causes.
"We are a nation founded on biblical principles written in the Ten Commandments," she told her Senate colleagues. "This is what makes America different from totalitarian nations."
"If you look at our Constitution and at our Declaration of Independence, you will not find separation of church and state anywhere," added Sen. John Douglas, R-Covington.
[Say what Senator? Do you not consider the first words of the first amendment of the Constitution that begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to be part of the Constitution, Senator? Oh, this is just an amendment, and doesn't count. OK, I see.]
"Yet, we have organizations that use that phrase regularly not only to try to prevent display of the Ten Commandments but in other areas of public life."
Before passing the resolution, senators rejected two amendments proposed by Democrats.
Sen. Robert Brown, D-Macon, sought to encourage judges interested in displaying the Ten Commandments to make sure such displays are at least a 72-point font size.
"If you're going to put it in a courthouse, it ought to be large enough to read," he said.
Sen. Steen Miles, D-Decatur, proposed an amendment suggested by one of her constituents in Rockdale County requiring all churches, synagogues and mosques to display the Ten Commandments.
"He suggested that charity begins at home and spreads abroad," she said.
Sen. Michael Meyer von Bremen, D-Albany, one of the eight senators who voted against the resolution, said he objected to politically charged wording in the measure suggesting that some judges have issued "unlawful" rulings in First Amendment cases.
"I'm not going to accuse our courts of being unlawful," said Meyer von Bremen, who noted that he has supported Ten Commandments resolutions in past sessions.
"We had these for six years, and I've never seen this kind of language."
Because the resolution simply expresses the sentiment of the Senate, it will not be sent to the House. Thus, Thursday's vote was the final action on it.
(3-18-05 article in The Albany Herald by Dave Williams.)
_______________
How is this thing going to come out?
As we know, the United States Supreme Court 25 years or so ago held that a state law requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in each classroom in a state was unconstitutional. That decision led courts to rule that the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms was unconstitutional (as a violation of what is referred to as the Establishment Clause part of the first amendment).
As noted, the issue of Ten Commandments is now before the Supreme Court again, and be prepared for the law to change. It is coming.
_______________
Regular readers of this blog might recall that in so voting, many Democratic Senators were following the advice that I set forth in my 12-27-04 post entitled "When the Dean speaks, the Democratic Party better listen, Part II. Sid's response to the Dean concerning the issues the Dean raised." This post set forth various positions I think our party must espouse if we are to return to power, including the following:
And truthfully Sir, we are not going to get beaten up and run over by making a grand stand opposing those who what to post the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Our position on this is that it is up to the courts to determine, and we expert that this matter will be resolved by the courts sooner rather than later.
We do agree with you that we all would do better if we tried harder to live by the biblical admonitions contained therein.
And also, and even though you did not mention this Sir, please know that we strongly resist taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and hopefully some of us will have the courage to publicly say so when this comes up again before the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. If the national Party takes a different stand, so be it.
_______________
My 10-16-04 post set forth how our appeallate courts are divided as follows:
We learned a couple of weeks ago that the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether displays of the Ten Commandments on public property violate the Constitution's separation of church and state.
Too bad that we won't know until after the election. Much like gay rights and keeping the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments displays have become a hot-button issue in the culture wars, pitting social conservatives who support such displays against the ACLU and other groups (you know, such as groups that oppose family values according to the GOP and Christian Coalition; you got it).
(For the record, posting the Ten Commandments on government property has been found to be constitutional by three circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals, with the federal appeals courts in another three -- including Atlanta -- having ruled that displaying the commandments in public buildings isn't permitted under most circumstances.)
But while we will learn something about displaying the Ten Commandments, we won't on the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. When the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to rule on the merits of the constitutional challenge on the words from the nut in California, we might get a hint of things to come.
Three justices addressed the First Amendment's Establishment Clause issue. Not surprisingly, Rehnquist and Thomas found no Establishment Clause problems. But more interestingly, O'Conner concluded that the Pledge's references to God are ceremonial deism and "simply not religious in character."
I am an advocate for keeping "under God" in the Pledge, a big advocate. But isn't it interesting how the GOP et al. decide who is and who is not an activist judge (or in this case, justice).
Here, since the Philistines like this reasoning of Justice O'Conner, we know there is no way she could ever be considered to be activist justice, although I sort of think she is engaging in active reasoning, whatever in the hell active reasoning is. Innovative anyway.
Deferring again to the wisdom of the Dean, on my Web site I noted:
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM -- My friend Bill Shipp recently wrote that "[a]s nearly as we can tell, a 'judicially activist' jurist is one who rules against your wishes. Example: Justice Sears opined in a lawsuit brought by Gov. Sonny Perdue that the governor could not legally assume duties of the attorney general. She also once ruled in favor of a lesbian in a domestic relations case, and she voted with the majority of the court in striking down the state's sodomy law. Such activities obviously cast her as a judicial activist, according to Gov. Perdue and his allies in the anti-gay Christian Coalition."
posted by Sid Cottingham | 6:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home