Public Expression of Religion Act moves forward

[fgoodwin 23]

Public Expression of Religion Act moves forward

 

http://www.recordgazette.net/articles/2006/07/28/news/05news.txt

http://tinyurl.com/hp9ga

 

Rees Lloyd, Banning-based attorney and Commander of American Legion District 21 (Riverside County), has been selected to testify on behalf of The American Legion before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution in support of passage of Senate Bill 3696, Veterans Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals and Other Public Expressions of Religion Act of 2006 (PERA).

 

S 3696 (PERA), sponsored by Sen. Brownback (R-Kan), a companion bill to H.R. 2979 (PERA), sponsored by Rep. Hostetter (R-Ind.), would amend all relevant federal laws to eliminate the authority of judges to award taxpayer-paid attorney fees to the ACLU, or anyone else, in lawsuits under the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment against veterans memorials, the Boy Scouts, or the public display of the Ten Commandments of other symbols of America's history with a religious aspect.

 

On Tuesday, July 25, the Banning City Council unanimously adopted a resolution in support of efforts to reform the law by passage of PERA.

 

Banning is believed to be the first elected body to officially take a stand in favor of reforming the law to protect taxpayers in such cases.

 

The Record Gazette was either the first or one of the first newspapers to formally endorse reforming the law.

[Hunt 11]

This law, if it ever passes, will probably be found unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.

[fgoodwin 23]

The correct house bill number is HR 2679.

[fgoodwin 23]

ACLU Urges House Panel To Reject "Public Expression of Religion Act"

 

http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/26254prs20060726.html

 

Calls Bill A Direct Attack on Individual Religious Freedom

7/26/2006

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Media@dcaclu.org

 

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject H.R. 2679, the "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005" (PERA). The panel is expected to vote on the legislation today. The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys fees to citizens who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

 

"If this bill were to become law, Congress would, for the first time, single out one area protected by the Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Proponents of the measure claim that the bill is needed to protect religious freedom, when in fact, the bill would undermine it. We hope that the committee will stand for the Constitution and reject this unwise proposal."

 

The ability to recover attorneys fees in civil rights and constitutional cases, including Establishment Clause cases, is necessary to help protect the religious freedom of all Americans and to keep religion government-free. People who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees -- often totaling tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Few citizens can afford to do so. But more importantly citizens should not be required to do so where the court finds that the government has violated their rights and engaged in unconstitutional behavior.

 

The elimination of attorneys fees would also deter attorneys from taking cases in which the government has acted unconstitutionally. In many cases, religious minorities would be unable to obtain legal representation to defend themselves when the government violates their religious freedom. The bill would apply even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of public school children or blatant discrimination against particular religions.

 

The ACLU noted that proponents of the bill have been spreading myths that religious symbols on gravestones at military cemeteries will be threatened without passage of PERA. In fact, religious symbols on grave markers in military cemeteries, including Arlington National Cemetery, are entirely constitutional. Religious symbols on personal gravestones are vastly different from government-sponsored religious symbols or religious symbols on government-owned property.

 

"The ability to recover attorneys fees in successful cases is an essential component of the enforcement of an Americans right to religious freedom," said Terri Ann Schroeder, an ACLU Senior Lobbyist. "The right to keep religion government-free and ensure that government keeps its hands off and out of religion is in jeopardy. We hope that lawmakers will see through the absurd myths put out by PERAs advocates and will support religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment."

[GernBlansten 10]

I always get a little nervous when congress proposes laws that narrowly protects or denies a specific special interest or organization. When faced with analysing these laws, I often replace the object of the new law with something else, reverse the roles and see how it plays. Lets say the law was to amend all relevant federal laws to eliminate the authority of judges to award taxpayer-paid attorney fees to veterans groups, churches, the Boy Scouts , or anyone else, in lawsuits under the Separation of Church and State Clause of the First Amendment against ACLU, or any other civil liberties watchdog group. Just doesn't sound right or American does it.

[evmori 11]

Doesn't the 1st Ammendment give us the freedom of religion? Doesn't this help enforce that?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten 10]

Could be Ed. But it also could be used against the 1st Amendment since only those weathly enough can afford to sue to enforce it.

 

I smell a slippery slope ahead.

[Hunt 11]

"Doesn't the 1st Ammendment give us the freedom of religion? Doesn't this help enforce that?"

 

No, it doesn't, because it only limits the ability to sue public entities for violations of the Establishment Clause. It has no impact on any private citizen's practice of his religion.

It's all a farce anyway, because the lawyers in Congress must realize that the proposed law itself is unconstitutional and will get struck down, even by a conservative Supreme Court. Courts really hate laws that limit their jurisdiction or powers, anyway.

[packsaddle 753]

Agree with Hunt, politically motivated stand destined to fail. But it might rally a political base prior to the elections.

A simpler solution: the government and others could stop breaking the law, then the ACLU would stop collecting legal fees. The whole issue would go away.

[SR540Beaver 116]

I'm 49 years old and I've been a professed Christian for 42 years and so far, I've never had my right to publically express my religion infringed. But then I'm a private citizen, not a government sponsored organization.

 

Oh wait, this doesn't really have a thing to do with public expression of religion, that is just a catchy name for the legislation to garner support. It actually is an attempt to keep the ACLU from collecting legal fees when it challenges a government entity for wrongdoing. Why didn't they name the legislation something like the "Keep the ACLU from Collecting Legal Fees when Challenging the Government on Establishment Clause Cases"?

 

Truth in advertising.