Public Expression Of Religion Act of 2005 Needs Your Support
Posted on February 13, 2006
At the head of this movement is the ultimate American evil, the ACLU. What they do is send out advisory letters to small communities. Usually those which are cash strapped in economically depressed areas. When a church or other organization has some sort of public display of faith, the ACLU sends the letter to advise the local government that they must prohibit it or face the wrath of the ACLU in federal court. Proceedings which are not only costly to defend, but extremely costly if you lose.
The ACLU accomplishes this by their exploitation of section 1979 of Title 42 U.S.C. 1983. This section provides for the option of a federal judge to award the reimbursement of legal fees to the prevailing party in civil rights cases. This section was written as to encourage “pro bono” actions on the part of civil rights attorneys. But in the hands of the ACLU, it has become a weapon by which to extort their agenda by the use of these advisory letters. Many small communities are forced to capitulate through the fear of costly proceedings.
With the passage of H.R. 2679 wording changes in the section would eliminate this extortion tool from the arsenal of the ACLU. And with it, the restoration of what the framers of this nation intended when the 1st Amendment was written. The freedom of expression provision does not say that we have a freedom from religion, but rather that our rights to worship shall not be infringed.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I have explained multiple times how the federal judiciary has been corrupted with the activism gene. Through the efforts of liberal Supreme Court Justices such as Hugo Black and other federal judges, the 14th Amendment has been expanded and exploited through the encouragement of liberal organizations such as the ACLU. Hugo Black in his dissent of the Adamson v. California (1947) decision stated:
“My study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth Amendment…persuades me that one of the chief objects that the provisions of the Amendment’s first section were intended to accomplish was to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.”
In this way, Hugo Black stated that the 14th Amendment which was adopted in 1868, was intended to place the specific restriction of the “establishment clause” on Congress to state and local governments. This is the foundation of each and every argument the ACLU and other liberal groups argue against public displays of religion and religious icons. For example, Mount Soledad Korean War Memorial which a federal judge has ordered to be dismantled because it contains a cross. A cross which apparently has offended 1 single atheist who passes by it during his daily commute. Hugo Black’s opinion has now, over time, become established precedent and is followed by those who wish the courts to have control over what our rights are.
The original Federalist intent of our Constitution was a restricted central government with the actual power being as close to the people as possible, the states. Personal freedoms and liberties were to be defined by the states. However, there was another element which wanted a larger central government which would define personal liberties which all states must honor. So from that, the Bill of Rights were born.
Strict Constructionists such as myself believe that if the intent of the framers was to place the restrictions of the “establishment clause” upon state and local governments, it would say so. But it doesn’t. It specifically states “Congress” meaning the Congress of the United States. And because the Constitution does not specifically place this restriction upon the state and local governments, it is our opinion that state and local governments are free to allow groups of faithful to publicly proclaim and express their faith on public lands. And we come by this belief by looking at the 10th Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Hugo Black’s assertion that the 14th Amendment seeks to apply the bill of rights to the states is a falsehood. No where in the text of the 14th Amendment does it specifically state that. But that is typical of Broad Constructionists. Hence the word “broad”. They find meanings in the text which are not there. See if you can find Hugo’s assertion in the wording, because I can’t.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,4 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
What H.R. 2679 does is remove the awarding of reimbursement of legal fees to prevailing parties in “establishment clause” cases only.
To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney’s fees.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005′.
SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.
(a) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights- Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended–
(1) by inserting `(a)’ before the first sentence; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.’.
(b) Attorneys Fees- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.’.
This is a first step to taking back our founding document. It needs to be passed. It is time that you contact your Congressman and both your Senators and ask them to not only support this legislation, but co-sponsor it and expedite its passage.
Sign the Stop The ACLU Petition urging the passage of this legislation.
Locate your Congressman’s Website here.
Locate your Senators’ Websites here.
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “Public Expression Of Religion Act of 2005 Needs Your Support”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
I like your blog!! The ACLU is as anti-american as Al Quaeda. They are no longer standing up for the civil liberties of American citizens. They continue to operate under the guise of a benevolent organization while they slowly eat away at the American way!!
Oh my, Hugo Black looked to context. Try reading one of Scalia’s decisions on establishment and see if he just reads the text or if he looks to history. You might be surprised.
“In this way, Hugo Black stated that the 14th Amendment which was adopted in 1868, was intended to place the specific restriction of the “establishment clause” on Congress to state and local governments. This is the foundation of each and every argument the ACLU and other liberal groups argue against public displays of religion and religious icons.”
Hugo Black’s theory of incorporation is not how we were able to secure our rights against the states.
keep loving, keep fighting, keep learning.
And do you really think that your local government can ban speech?
Comment edited out by Gribbit.
We have a rule, no link, no voice. This rule applies to all threads authored by Gribbit. Don’t like it, too bad!
All comments, regardless of point of view are subject to this rule. If you fail to leave a valid link, you will be deleted and humiliated for being an absolulte MORON!
I’m wondering why, after describing the ACLU’s alleged tactics, you fail to give any examples of such cases, Gribbit. There are some folks who like to look at the facts and make up their own minds.
Well I guess your name says it all. I have given examples. I’ve been giving examples for a year now. It’s idiots like you who cannot pick up a newspaper, read an email alert straight from the ACLU themselves, or pay any actual attention to the real history of this nation who doubt what I say is the truth.
So Meat-head, it seems to me that Mount Soledad itself doesn’t qualify as an example? How about the thousands of “advisory letters” sent by the ACLU and received by local governments year after year seeking to exploit the threat of these legal fees to push their agenda. What do you have to fear by the passage of this legislation? The fact that the true will of the nation may finally be observed.
Go away, you bore me.
“What do you have to fear by the passage of this legislation? ”
That only the rights of rich people will be protected.
That is the most ignorant statement that I have ever read in my entire life. Are you naturally stupid or do you work on it?
“That only the rights of rich people will be protected.”
I agree, this is dumb. Every liberal out there uses the anti-rich idea to frame the debate over anything.
“And do you really think that your local government can ban speech?”
No, but apparently liberals do, since its liberals that start hyperventilating about their misinterpretation of the establishment clause whenever a public official says “Jesus” in a public forum. Its very hypocritical for liberals to scream about free speech when they try so hard to ban the speech of others. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.