Skip to comments.
H.R. 2679 - TAKES AWAY FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FROM ACLU !!!
thomas.loc.gov ^
| Friday, September 9, 2005
Posted on 09/09/2005 8:31:25 PM PDT by 11th_VA
Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
HR 2679 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2679
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.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 26, 2005
Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. WAMP, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SODREL, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. PITTS, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. OTTER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. POE, and Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: 109th; 109thcongress; aclu; chillout; defundtheaclu; fundingtheleft; homosexualagenda; hostettler; hr2679; lawsuits; puppetmasters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
To: George W. Bush
Sorry for offending yours or other Freepers' sensibilities. I should have used less offensive phrasing.
41
posted on
09/10/2005 9:20:24 AM PDT
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
(Hate yourself? Hate everybody else, too? You'll be at home with the Democrats!)
To: 11th_VA
42
posted on
09/10/2005 2:22:16 PM PDT
by
Marauder
(You can't stop sheep-killing predators by putting more restrictions on the sheep.)
To: DBrow; Congressman Billybob
"Interesting idea. If it passed, would courts throw it out?"
Billybobn correct me if I'm wrong... but I believe that only the supreme court could throw this out.
Congress has authority over all the lower courts, including the circuit courts, and this is direction to them.
43
posted on
09/11/2005 6:49:53 AM PDT
by
adam_az
(It's the border, stupid!)
To: adam_az; All
There is zero doubt that this proposed law is constitutional. That is because it is an amendment to the 1976 Civil Rights Act in which Congress authorized the award of attorneys fees and costs.
The courts have awarded fees to the ACLU under the existing statute. And the Supreme Court has ruled that absent this statutory authority, none of the federal courts can award attorneys fees. So, what Congress itself has granted, Congress can take away. Not even Justice Ginsburg can stop this, IF CONGRESS ACTS.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "Mayor Nagin: 10,000 Counts of Manslaughter"
44
posted on
09/11/2005 9:07:21 AM PDT
by
Congressman Billybob
(Mayor Nagin is personally responsible for 6 times the American deaths as the Iraq War.)
To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
I should have used less offensive phrasing.
I try not to be a thread cop but I think we want to take the high road. I certainly didn't need an apology from you but perhaps you're more polite than I am. If you ever glance around at DU, you become aware how the more colorful kind of language can start to define an entire website and people soon don't feel they've made a strong opinion without some blue language. I've noticed over the years that if I let myself use that kind of language, pretty soon it takes over my speech habits. But maybe that's just me.
We don't want FR to go that way so I think that we can let the DUmmies beat us on that one thing.
Have a really good day, Tom.
To: 11th_VA
This is what keeps the ACLU going. Suing for monetary damages in religion cases merely funds their next one. Cities who don't want to fight the ACLU settle for damages, and their operation rakes in the bucks.
46
posted on
09/12/2005 3:11:12 PM PDT
by
Colonel_Flagg
("One might even go so far as to say ... he's mediocre." - Daffy Duck)
To: Congressman Billybob
The courts have awarded fees to the ACLU under the existing statute. And the Supreme Court has ruled that absent this statutory authority, none of the federal courts can award attorneys fees. So, what Congress itself has granted, Congress can take away.
This simple fact needs to be pounded into people's heads. This would be a wonderful topic for Rush and other conservative commentators to take up.
So thank you for that important public service announcement, congressman.
To: George W. Bush
And thank you, Mr. President, for taking notice of my humble contribution.
Your dedicated supporter (unless your wrong, like on immigration),
Congressman Billybob
48
posted on
09/12/2005 7:56:49 PM PDT
by
Congressman Billybob
(The difference between a Louisiana Democrat and a crawfish is the crawfish tastes good.)
To: George W. Bush
You're right and that's why I apologized. See ya around for future highbrow debate. :O)
49
posted on
09/12/2005 9:11:16 PM PDT
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
(Hate yourself? Hate everybody else, too? You'll be at home with the Democrats!)
To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
Way to go! I can appreciate someone who knows when to say "I'm Wrong"...You're a real class act and I for one respect you very highly for that.
50
posted on
09/12/2005 9:28:39 PM PDT
by
Randy Larsen
(Freedom is not America's gift to man, Freedom is GOD'S gift to mankind!....G.W.Bush)
51
posted on
09/12/2005 10:02:39 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
To: thompsonsjkc; odoso; animoveritas; DaveTesla; mercygrace; Laissez-faire capitalist; ...
Moral Absolutes AND Homosexual Agenda Two-fer.
FYI - this bill NEEDS TO PASS AND GET SIGNED. Freep your representatives, senators, whatever. If the ACLU is defunded by OUR tax money, it will be largely de-fanged. It is one of the most dangerous organizations and it is attempting to undermine everything that makes our country valuable. It is truly a vile, contemptible organization. If any of you don't know much about the ACLU, do a search on it and read up. It was started by avowed communists with the goal to disrupt and undermine the US.
Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2k if you want on/off the H.A. ping list, and freepmail ME only if you want on/off the M.A. list.
52
posted on
09/13/2005 9:36:28 AM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
To: 11th_VA
`(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.'.
Can anyone decode this for me? What is injunctive relief? What is subsection (b) and who doesn't get the fees?
53
posted on
09/14/2005 12:17:36 PM PDT
by
tuesday afternoon
(Everything happens for a reason. - 40 and 43)
To: All
BUMP - Needed now more than ever !!!
54
posted on
09/15/2005 6:41:30 AM PDT
by
11th_VA
(Geezee Freepin Peezee ...)
To: tuesday afternoon
What is injunctive relief? From Google: An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that either prohibits or compels ("enjoins" or "restrains") a party from continuing a particular activity. The party that fails to adhere to the injunction faces civil or criminal contempt of court and may have to pay damages or sanctions for failing to follow the court's order.
Basiclly, for example, if ACLU were to win a case involving 'a cross on public property,' the 'injuctive relief' would be, removal of the cross - no award fees what so ever, unless the losing party failed to abide by the court order.
55
posted on
09/15/2005 6:47:14 AM PDT
by
11th_VA
(Geezee Freepin Peezee ...)
To: 11th_VA
56
posted on
09/15/2005 5:14:52 PM PDT
by
tuesday afternoon
(Everything happens for a reason. - 40 and 43)
To: 11th_VA
57
posted on
08/02/2006 12:12:02 PM PDT
by
fgoodwin
(Fundamentalist, right-wing nut and and proud father of a First Class Boy Scout!)
To: NYer; Coleus; sandyeggo; american colleen; Antoninus; ninenot; AKA Elena; Domestic Church; ...
58
posted on
08/02/2006 4:40:20 PM PDT
by
Maeve
(St. Rafqa, pray for us.)
To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
59
posted on
08/02/2006 5:08:41 PM PDT
by
Coleus
(http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main)
To: Salvation
60
posted on
08/11/2006 5:49:09 AM PDT
by
pray4liberty
(School District horrors: http://totallyunjust.tripod.com)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson