ACLU-Indiana sues over no fees being attached to ‘God’ plate
By KEN KUSMER
Associated Press Writer
Journal & Courier
INDIANAPOLIS –
A legal complaint filed today challenges the constitutionality of the year-old law that created the “In God We Trust” specialty license plate, saying its supporters receive preferential treatment not available to supporters of other specialty plates.
Hogwash! There is nothing unconstitutional about a state recognizing religion. They are “specialty” plates, not official state plates that the government mandates the citizens buy.
The lawsuit filed in Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis claims motorists who request the “In God We Trust” plates receive preferential treatment because they do not have to pay a $15 administrative fee that the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles collects. The administrative fees are added to other fees whose proceeds promote the causes of the other specialty plates.
Big deal! Indiana offers “In God we trust” plates for free and charges for “Disabled Veteran” plates. Arkansas charges a fee for their “In God we trust” plates, but offers “Disabled Veteran” plates free.
The plaintiff bringing the case, Mark Studler, said he pays an additional $40 for one of the popular environmental plates depicting an eagle above the word “Environment.” Of the total fee, $25 goes to a state trust to purchase land set aside for conservation or recreational purposes and the remaining $15 is for the administration fee.
I can see where this might tick off the ‘global warming’ proponents, but you might as well get used to it. As a matter of fact; keep your wallets in your hands and open because your agenda is going to cost all of us, including those of us who don’t believe in it or support it, lots of money.
Ironic, no? Those forcing their “dogma” on everyone at a high price, crying about others offering their “dogma” for free.
The 2006 law establishing the “In God We Trust” plate waives the administrative fee.
“Therefore, those who obtain an ‘In God We Trust’ license plate are afforded the opportunity to make an affirmative statement through display of the plate without any additional cost while Mr. Studler must pay additional fees for his environmental license plate,” the complaint said.
Studler is being represented by the Indiana branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU fails to point out that Mr. Studler has the option of just keeping his old plates for another year, for free.
Another irony is of course, should Indiana lose this case, the ACLU will have no problem accepting all those taxpayer Ben Franklins with “IN God we Trust” on them.
Tsk! Tsk!
Email This
Posted by loboinok on April 23, 2007 3:39 pm
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, Global Warming, News
Trackback URL:
Comments
15 Responses to “ACLU-Indiana sues over no fees being attached to ‘God’ plate”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
If Indiana charged the $15 for the specialty plates, then the ACLU would sue over church-state issues.
So if someone wants to purchase an “In God We Trust” plate for $40 will $15 go towards administrative fees and $25 go towards a religious foundation? Seems only fair as thats how the money is apportioned for the “Enviornment” plates.
But then again, that might be too close to common sense!
We are starting to get as bad as the people who live in Illinois.
I am all for Church State separation, but these plates are entirely voluntary to buy, so I don’t see how there is a legal issue here.
“$25 goes to a state trust to purchase land set aside for conservation” So the Price of the Environmental plates is inflated to take out extra for the program, so isn’t that the big deal with that? Pay $40 so some goes into a eco-friendly plan that you chose to participate in?
As for not charging for the specialty plate… well, $15 isn’t that big of a deal, why shouldn’t you pay for your special plate? On the other hand, The 1st Amendment does protect the free exercise of religion… does license plates count as an “exercise?”
C’mon now, you know those aren’t all apples. No one would suggest a “Disabled Veteran” plate has anything to do with the establishment clause. The people of Arkansas are free to offer preferential treatment to that group if they so choose. “In God We Trust” is not as simple.
Maybe, because there still isn’t a compelling reason for the state to be offering the plates in the first place, but the state is certainly compounding the matter by offering the plates for free. It’s one thing to offer the plates (questionable, but probably legal considering the historical relevance of the phrase), it’s a whole ‘nother thing to give the plates preferential treatment.
No, the $25 environmental donation goes to a state trust. As a libertarian, I question whether the state should even have such a trust, but it definitely would have no business creating a similar trust for religious matters. If you want to donate $25 to a religious entity, just go ahead and do it. You don’t need the state to act as a broker.
Yes, but the plates are state-issued, so the establishment clause is relevant too. As usual, it’ll be up to the courts to find the proper balance.
MADALYN MURRAY O’HAIR et al. v. W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, et al. (462 F. Supp. 19 — W.D. Tex 1978)
“Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of religious exercise.”
This is what was ruled about “In God we trust” on currency, since this is the same phrase should this ruling not apply to it as well?
“Maybe, because there still isn’t a compelling reason for the state to be offering the plates in the first place,…”
The compelling reason to offer the plates seems to be the people that seem to want them.
Possibly, but that’s not an apples to apples comparison. Ironically, the state would probably have a better case if they put the phrase on every plate. They opened themselves up by offering this specialty plate under notably different terms than all other specialty plates.
That’s not sufficient to override a constitutional violation, if one is deemed to have occurred.
Jeff: I didn’t state anything about an alleged violation, I just answered your question of why they offered them in the first place.
The alleged violation is implicit in this whole discussion. I concede that there is certainly a demand for these plates, but the establishment clause makes any attempt by the state to satisfy that demand questionable. So, yes, it’s possible that the ACLU would challenge the plates even if they were offered under the same terms as every other specialty plate. When I used the term “compelling reason”, I meant it in the legal sense that would be a necessary part in defending the ACLU’s challenge.
Jeff Molby, perhaps you should re-read the complaint. It’s lodged because of the discrimination ,
not because of the separation issue. Pick a stance and stick with it. Again, apples and oranges.
I was responding to the hypothetical posed by Lord Nazh in comment #1.
Wow, I know this is days late but I just read a comment that so misses any possible point that I had to comment on it. Jeff Molby says “No one would suggest a “Disabled Veteran†plate has anything to do with the establishment clause.” Noone who has actually read the bill of rights would suggest that Indiana license plates bearing “In God We Trust” has anything to do with any “establishment clause.” Nowhere in “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” do you see ANY mention of ANY state or local government, or ANY entity of the United States federal government other than the first word-Congress (the US legislative body). Since the act permitting the Indiana plates was passed by a STATE legislature, nothing in the first amendment’s “establishment clause” applies to it.
You must not have heard the news. You’re certainly not alone if you disagree with the Incorporation doctrine, but it does exist and it will apply to this case.
You want to use a strict interpretation of the constitution? That’s fine; there are portions that I would like to see strictly interpreted too. It takes a special kind of arrogance, however, to speak as if the issue is cut and dried, when the precedents are anything but.