License Plate CHOICE Violates First Amendment?

Posted on June 20, 2008

Americans United for Elimination of Church and Religion Separation of Church and State has done it again. The state of South Carolina unanimously passed legislation to produce a license plate with the words, “I Believe,” featured with a large cross and a stained glass window. Note this minor detail: the plate is optional; no one is forced to purchase it. Of course, AU omits this in its news release and the entire argument. A voluntary, optional license plate in a convoluted way, violates the First Amendment.

The Summers v. Adams lawsuit charges that the Christian plate gives preferential government treatment to one faith.

“The state has clearly given preferential treatment to Christianity with this license plate,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “I can’t think of a more flagrant violation of the First Amendment’s promise of equal treatment for all faiths. I believe these plates will not see the light of day.”

The Americans United lawsuit says the Christian license plate violates the separation of church and state as well as freedom of speech. It notes that other religions will not be able to get similar license plates expressing differing viewpoints, nor can a comparable “I Don’t Believe” license plate be issued.

Not be able to get a similar plate? A contrasting, “I Don’t Believe,” can’t be issued? Where exactly does the Constitution indicate lawmakers must satisfy everyone, and simultaneously not offend anyone?

Clearly, Christianity was the preferred religion of the Founders. The Constitution they established did not need to mention Christianity or God. Their high esteem of Him is easily discovered by reading records of the Constitutional Convention. They founded a country that would welcome all religions to practice freely. But government was to encourage Christianity above all others.

If AU wants to get technical, the First Amendment was only intended to limit the scope to the Federal government. State governments were free to establish any religion they saw fit. Judicial precedent demonstrates this for over 150 years since the country’s beginning. It wasn’t until Chief Justice Hugo Black’s blunder in the 1947 Everson case, in which he systematically linked the Fourteenth Amendment (via a ruling from 1868 ) to the First Amendment (with a ruling from 1791). Funny thing is, that connection had always existed for 79 years prior with many, earlier courts and many Founders included, oblivious to such a connection.

Allahpundit:

Exit compromise: You can keep this if the state also offers a plate featuring an image of Hitchens, drunk, above the slogan, “Abandon all hope.”

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, History, Multiculturalism/PC, News, Secular Humanism, Socialism, Stupidity

Trackback URL

Comments

6 Responses to “License Plate CHOICE Violates First Amendment?”

Is on June 20th, 2008 9:37 am

We have a similar optional plate here in Alabama. It says “God Bless America”. I’m not a Christian, so I don’t have one on my car. It doesn’t violate my rights, so I just go about my business.
TR on June 20th, 2008 11:07 am

That’s correct, Is. If I’m not mistaken, Alabama still offers the “Stars Fell on Alabama” plate free of charge. Thanks for recognizing that this voluntary plate (in both states) is not a violation of the First Amendment.
Rich on June 22nd, 2008 1:45 am

Not sure about the Alabama situation, but all the other specialty plates in SC were created and paid for by citizens (they have to put up $4000 or 400 orders), not voted in by the Legislature. The Government voting in a preferential treatment for a particular religious message does seem to involve the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. The court case will be interesting.
TR on June 22nd, 2008 1:47 am

Rich, the last paragraph of my post addresses your comment. States are free to establish any state religion they desire, under the Constitution.
rich on June 23rd, 2008 4:04 pm

I did let that go by, but you are missing the real point of that decision in 1947, as it applies to state religions. Although it was a 5 to 4 ruling in favor of allowing tax money to be spent in busing children to church run schools, all 9 justices agreed with:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’” 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

Unanimous concurrences from any Supreme Court is a rare bird, and the unanimity of this opinion is a culmination of the due process rulings beginning in the 1870’s. The idea that an American citizen would, by simply moving to another State, lose rights and protections guaranteed by the Federal Constitution has been pretty well demolished over the last 140 years. There are disagreements over the details of how the 14th applies to the 1st, but no credible (that I have seen) arguments that it does not at all.
TR on June 24th, 2008 12:18 am

If all 9 justices actually concurred with this statement: “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State,’” they’d all be dead wrong.

There is too much too say here. I will say that the wording of the First Amendment only intended to prevent the establishment of a national denomination of Christianity. Religion or sect was a common word for denomination a the time and come up frequently when looking at the committee that authored the First Amendment. I’ve written at length about this ,and the absurdity of tying the Fourteenth to the First. See here.

Suffice it to say for this particular post, no one is being forced to take the plate. A governmental vote on something having to do with Christianity is fully within the scope of the First Amendment.