ACLU suing Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana School Board (School Prayer)

ACLU of Louisiana ^ | April 5, 2005 | ACLU of Louisiana

[Houmatt]

NEW ORLEANS—The ACLU has filed a motion for criminal contempt today against the Tangipahoa Parish School Board for defying an agreed on court order banning official prayer at athletic events. An individual identified as Shane Tycer delivered a pre-game prayer over the PA system on March 24 at a baseball game between Loranger High School and Sumner High School. This marks the second contempt motion filed against the school board within the past two weeks for transgressions of injunctions related to the original lawsuit.

“The defendant school board and its superintendent cannot get away with a shell game that mocks the judiciary and its role of interpreting and upholding the rule of law,” remarked Joe Cook, Executive Director, ACLU of Louisiana. “The actors in this matter deserve jail and/or fines for their calculated un-American and immoral conduct to embarrass, hinder or obstruct the court in the administration of justice. Such behavior mimics segregationists who defied the federal courts rather than integrate the schools in Louisiana and elsewhere.”

After being sued in 2003 by a parent on behalf of his two children, the defendants acknowledged engaging in certain illegal conduct to advance religion by conducting invocations prior to athletic and other sponsored events. They voluntarily agreed to a consent judgment on August 27, 2004, that strictly prohibited such activity from that point forward (http://www.laaclu.org/DoevTangiConsent.pdf). Now, however, comes a prayer at a baseball game held “at a venue owned, operated, controlled and/or under the supervision of the Tangipahoa Parish School Board.” Even though the culpable individual offering up the prayer is not an employee of the school board, the defendants bear responsibility and cannot get others to do what they themselves are prohibited from doing.

After being notified of the latest incident, the defendants acknowledged that it happened and offered a lame explanation that the regular PA system announcer arrived late. As such, Mr. Tycer proceeded to use the school’s PA system and give a pre-game invocation. There was no attempt by defendants or any of their agents and/or employees to stop Mr. Tycer. Notwithstanding the fact that such actions clearly violated the consent judgment, the school board nor the superintendent have publicly repudiated them. This tracks with the actors’ same posture during and after prohibited prayers at school board meetings, which led to the first motion for contempt.

The Tangipahoa Parish School Board has established a pattern and a practice of using the public schools as a vehicle to indoctrinate young impressionable children with fundamentalist Christian ideology. Inasmuch the ACLU has sponsored three lawsuits on similar issues over a ten year period on behalf complaining plaintiffs, parents with children in that system: promotion of the biblical faith-based story of creation as opposed to scientifically based theory of evolution; “pizza preacher” proselytizing via a free lunch; and the latest case. Such defiant conduct or support for it, from whatever quarter, undermines the rule of law, dishonors and endangers the Constitution, sends a message of religious intolerance and polarizes the community.

It is time to put out the welcome mat to believers and non-believers alike at all public school functions across the state and the nation. Public schools should be kept inclusive and secular in keeping with our Founders’ ideas for religious liberty for all. Children and parents whose beliefs are different from the majority must not be made to feel like outsiders in their own schools. Because public schools are part of the government, official school-organized or school-sponsored devotional exercises are inconsistent with the principle of religious freedom. How, when, where and to whom children should pray is a decision that should be made by families in the home and chosen places of worship, not forced or coerced by government officials.

Since 1920, the ACLU has served as the nation’s foremost defender of individual freedom as embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A copy of the motion for contempt is at http://www.laaclu.org/DoeCrimContempt040505.pdf.

[Modernman]

You means decades of unconstitutional decisions.

As to SCOTUS decisions, there is no such thing as an "unconstitutional decision."

So, unfortunately, that decision was, and is, in and of itself unconstitutional.

Get yourself on the Supreme Court and have the decision overturned. Until you do, your opinion on this matter is wholly without merit.

[OhioAttorney]

But nobody is practicing anything, just allowing kids to pray.

Horse puckey. Kids are, and have always been, allowed to pray, and they can do so without the permission or the help of school officials. In this instance, somebody led the students in prayer over the school PA system at a school-sponsored event, and they did it after the court had ordered the school to stop opening such events with invocations.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

You are the master of the incorrect answer. I shall demonstrate.

What law did the courts interpret in order to reach their decision? NONE! It was the opinion of the judges in civil matters, not an interpretation of any law. Therefore, it was not a matter in which the courts were authorized to 'interpret' anything.

Find me the place where the legislatures of both the Federal Government and the several states have voted on 'common law' that gives the courts the authority to make determinations upon the Constitutionality of a given law. You won't find it. Marbury v. Madison is the only place where this supposedly exists (a court decision giving power to the courts?!), though the Founders wrote the exact opposite in their follow-on writings. Their intent was that Congress would make such determination. So you are wrong on both counts.

Again, find where in the Constitution where is says the Judiciary has this power. Article III says that the Judiciary has power in all cases arising UNDER the Constitution, but that does not mean arising to the level OF the Constitution. That was left to to Article V. Congress and the states were granted the power to do so. The courts, through judicial rulings, changed the meaning of the First Amendment to say something it most assuredly doesn't say. It, in effect, amended the document. It can't do so.

Jumping up and down saying "the courts say so' don't make it so. They've been wrong so many times it isn't funny. And they will be wrong again. And again. And again.

[Modernman]

You won't find it. Marbury v. Madison is the only place where this supposedly exists (a court decision giving power to the courts?!), though the Founders wrote the exact opposite in their follow-on writings. Their intent was that Congress would make such determination. So you are wrong on both counts.

Congress has had over two centuries to overturn Marbury through a constitutional amendment. That fact that they have not done so leads to the conclusion that they agree with SCOTUS' ruling in that case.

Jumping up and down saying "the courts say so' don't make it so. They've been wrong so many times it isn't funny. And they will be wrong again. And again. And again.

Like I said, get yourself on SCOTUS and have the rulings overturned. Until then, these "Wrong" rulings are the law of the land.

[massgopguy]

You can pray all you want before the Boston College/Notre Dame game. I know I do!

[One Proud Dad]

Praying over a loud speaker is not advancing beliefs. Hold a gun to your head and saying pray or else is...

You said..."Read it again. The Founding Fathers made sure that the majority simply cannot vote to do certain things"

We do every 4 years as a matter of speaking. We must just follow up and hold our elected official to our wishes.

You need a history lesson, better yet a tour of Washington. There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law makers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view . it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall,
right above where the Supreme Court judges sit,
a display of the Ten Commandments!


James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."


Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.


Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established religions in the colonies.


Thomas Jefferson worried that the "Courts" would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law . AN OLIGARCHY....
"the rule of few over many."


How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly "wrong and unconstitutional"?

[OhioAttorney]

Jumping up and down saying "the courts say so' don't make it so.

It does if at least five out of nine justices do it. If you don't like the U.S.'s constitutional system, move someplace where the rest of the government can do whatever it likes without the judiciary to keep it in check. I can suggest some nice Middle Eastern locations.

[cajungirl]

I agree.

I am down here and you have no idea how much praying there is, this is the tip of a monumental iceberg. There is praying everywhere, schools, government offices, university. The ACLU could spend the rest of its days in Louisiana and there would still be praying.

[Ellesu]

http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/2005/04/06/top_stories/news01.txt

Preachers lead 40 in prayer on steps of School Board building

By Fred Batiste, Daily Star Staff Writer



AMITE -- More than 40 people prayed on the steps of the Tangipahoa Parish School Board Office before Tuesday's board meeting.

The group was asking for divine intervention in the School Board's legal fight against the American Civil Liberties Union regarding prayers during the board meeting.

The prayer preceded one local pastor who asked the board not to eliminate patriotism from its meetings.

The Rev. Randy Foulks and the Rev. Francis Williams, along with Beth Davis of the Christian Community Network and others, led prayers and preached to the group minutes before entering the board room. A man on a missionary trip from Arkansas wore a small sandwich board that read "FEAR GOD and keep his commandments" on one side and "JESUS SAVES" on the other side.

"If we take God out, we bring drugs and weapons and everything else in," Williams said.


During the meeting, Amite High School assistant football coach Sonny Wall told School Board officials, "God bless you" when he received a certificate recognizing the team winning the Class 3A state title. The remark drew a chuckle from Williams and another man sitting in front of him.

The Rev. Louis Husser said he represented CCN and asked the board not to eliminate students performing or reciting patriotic works before the board conducts business.

"How did we get to this? This is not the 5th Circuit in California. This is the South," Husser said.

Superintendent Louis Joseph said after the meeting there was never an issue with the board allowing students on the agenda.

"You'll see the same thing we've been doing from here on out," Joseph said.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

"If you don't like the U.S.'s constitutional system, move someplace where the rest of the government can do whatever it likes without the judiciary to keep it in check. I can suggest some nice Middle Eastern locations."

Sorry, I most assuredly decline, and less than courteously. What you have described (It does if five out of nine justices...) says that the SCOTUS can find any which way they so desire on any given subject. For instance, they could say that the 3rd Amendment means that soldiers can be garrisoned in any house if they wear pots on their head instead of helmets, and therefore they can't be called soldiers (because we say so). That power was never given the judiciary at any time. It was taken by that branch. You claim that it is Constitutional, but it isn't. You cannot find it in the Constitution, so you and Modernman pull out bogus "Because the courts say so" arguments. The SCOTUS ruled that the Army didn't use sawed off shotguns, therefore no citizen could have one. The Army issued short barreled Winchester trench guns during that time frame. So SCOTUS was wrong then, and it has been wrong since, and often.

[OhioAttorney]

You can holler all you want that the courts are 'wrong', but your claim that their decisions are not constitutional or are not really law are silly and ill-informed. The power to interpret the Constitution was indeed given to the courts by the Constitution itself (as part of the original meaning of the 'judicial power'). That doesn't mean every decision they make is automatically correct, but it does mean their decision is the law.

[NormalGuy]

The courts can be wrong on Dred Scot, Plessy-Ferguson, RoeVwade .... and prayer.

No where in the Constitution does it say that the Courts are the Law of the Land which is the common media term. The Constitution clearly says that Congress with the signature of the President, or by overriding a veto, is the LAW OF THE LAND.

To paraphrase Daley, the courts are not there to create disorder, they are there to preserve order/disorder ..... That is, they are there to see that the laws enacted by congress are applied to people accused of a violation of those laws. Since Congress has passed no law requiring or prohibiting prayer, the courts Constiutionally have no Constitutional standing.

We live in an age where people do not want to say The emperor has no clothes and yes, the courts are the emperor.

[OhioAttorney]

[The courts] are there to see that the laws enacted by congress are applied to people accused of a violation of those laws.

They're also there to help to ensure that both other federal branches, and (under Amendment XIV) all the branches of the state governments, don't step outside their Constitutional bounds. Anybody who's been harmed by their doing so has standing to bring a suit.

I'm on my way out of the office now, so I probably won't be back to this thread.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

"The power to interpret the Constitution was indeed given to the courts by the Constitution itself (as part of the original meaning of the 'judicial power')."

Wrong. That is your interpretation of what it means, but the writings of the men who actually wrote the Constitution say otherwise. I think I'll believe those men, and not some attorney who has a vested (monetary)interest in the courts having more power. Jefferson warned us about people like you 200 years ago. You wonder why the legal profession enjoys a reputation lower than a snakes belly? Because we know that your profession really does't care what happens to the nation, as long as you get your 30 pieces of silver.

The answer to why Congress hasn't tried to overturn Marbury v. Madison? Many Congresscritters are lawyers (as are the judges who 'interpret' the laws). They aren't about to give up their ever larger place at the trough.

There is a bounty on skunks. Why isn't there a bounty on lawyers? They are of the same stripe, as it were.

[One Proud Dad]

In Marbury the the U.S. Supreme Court established judicial review as a legitimate power of the Court on constitutional grounds. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare a statute void that it considered in contravention to the Constitution...


I find it funny that the court and not the people gave the court that power. Smells like oligarchy. Same smell today.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

I guess you and I are just 'silly and uninformed'. If the SCOTUS rules that the Constitution says the moon is made of green cheese, well then by golly, the moon is made of green cheese (as long as 5 of the 9 Justices agree, you see).

We are supposed to have rule of law. But what happens when man starts saying the law doesn't say what it says? Well then, we have rule of man. Or in this case, a few men(and some women). Yep, smells like ogliarchy, judicial type. It stinks to high Heaven. You know, like a skunk.

[Republicus2001]

"Little Jimmy", the majordomo of Ciudad de Los Angeles is proposing eliminating all crosswalks in the city to avoid conflict between church and state

[OhioAttorney]

That is your interpretation of what it means, but the writings of the men who actually wrote the Constitution say otherwise.

No, they don't, but your misreadings don't matter anyway because their private writings don't control Constitutional interpretation and they never intended them to do so.

I think I'll believe those men, and not some attorney . . .

Most of 'those men' were attorneys.

Anyway, I see you've run out of substantive replies. Pity.

[Houmatt]

As to SCOTUS decisions, there is no such thing as an "unconstitutional decision."

Wrong. It is the duty of SCOTUS to interpret laws based on how they apply to the Constitution. It is not their job to create law from whole cloth. That falls to the Legislative Branch, better known as Congress.

If you'd just take the time to actually read the Constitution you would know this already.

[Houmatt]

Tell that to the kids who have been threatened with arrest for saying grace over their lunches.