Posted on 04/07/2005 8:33:19 AM PDT by 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.
It was the letter written by Jefferson that gave rise to the concept of separation that has been used in the court rulings (a letter that has been misinterpreted, nay, twisted, into saying something that it didn't), so don't try that 'their private writings don't control..." line. Those writings give us the insight into why they wrote what they wrote, and they gave further reasons and intentions of that document. To disregard them would be like taking the 10 Commandments alone and saying, "We don't need the rest of the Bible".
The Constitution was never meant to be 'interpreted'. It was meant to be the limiting factor upon the government (all 3 branches), jealously guarding against the predations of power hungry men. Now comes people like you saying that the Constitution needs 'interpreting', as if it is written in a foreign language. The judges aren't interpreting it at all, but twisting to mean what they WANT it to say, based upon their own political philosophies. Rule of MAN, not rule of LAW is what we are getting here.
You claim I am out of substantive arguments, but you have yet to present anything beyond "people like me say so, so it is so." Ever larger percentages of the population are coming to the conclusion that the judiciary has to be reined in, for it has gone far beyond the powers given it. It is now MAKING law, not interpreting it (even though that wasn't its intended purpose.) You cannot point to any portion of the Constitution that says it was, other than a claim that 'judicial power' means what YOU and your fellow lawyers say it means. Well, the private writings show that wasn't the intent of that phrase, but of course you know better than the men who wrote it.
Courts have said that they divine the 'intent' of the Founders. Well, why not use the very words of those men? Why not? Because those words would limit the power of the men 'interpreting' them. And since honor and integrity is sorely lacking in your profession, they chose to ignore those words limiting their power. So do not equate yourself with those men. Some of them may have had a background in law, but they knew the concept of honor, and they didn't seize power FOR themselves, but for the people they represented.
I think the "rule" that judges be practicing attorneys is wrong. Should be an elected position and let the electorate on whatever the election level is ( local, state, etc... ) decide if a person is qualified to be a judge. Term limits should also apply. Having a 80 year old on the bench who can barely parambulate to the restroom or carry on a conversation is ludicrous at best when everyone knows the clerks do all the work anyway and the judge signs off on it. Terms would also remedy the ability to "unbench" judges who have lost touch with the pulse of the law as willed by the people.
Going to law school does not make you better at "rendering fair and impartial rulings". It only allows to to write laws so convoluted that you need to hire an attorney to interpret them if you are not one to make sure another attorney and teh courts ( another attorney who by the way plays golf with the other attorneys, so he'll be impartial yeah, right ) doesn't screw you. Damn right or wrong as long as the wherefores and billable hours are covered. Job security/creation at best.
Rant over.
"Going to law school does not make you better at "rendering fair and impartial rulings". It only allows to to write laws so convoluted that you need to hire an attorney to interpret them if you are not one to make sure another attorney and teh courts ( another attorney who by the way plays golf with the other attorneys, so he'll be impartial yeah, right ) doesn't screw you. Damn right or wrong as long as the wherefores and billable hours are covered. Job security/creation at best."
That is probably one of the best descriptions of today's legal system's maladies that I have seen to date. It wasn't always that way. But snake oil salemen took over, and corrupted the system. We were warned the Judiciary could render the Constitution down into bathroom tissue by dint of its 'rulings'. Lo and behold, it has happened.
One of the biggest scams if filing fees. I have to pay some guy $50-$100 or more plus court costs just for filling out a standarized form and giving it to a clerk who stamps it and puts it in a folder.
Let's not even get into property or divorce law.
On a side note I've toyed with the notion that there should be no case law or presidence. Every case should be decided on its own merit. They want to make big bucks then earn it and argue every case "prima facia".
Lawyer joke: I wanted to be a lawyer, but they would not let me into law school because my parents were married when I was born.
Oh, now that's quite an exaggeration there...
It was the letter written by Jefferson that gave rise to the concept of separation that has been used in the court rulings (a letter that has been misinterpreted, nay, twisted, into saying something that it didn't), so don't try that 'their private writings don't control..." line.
There's a significant difference between 'control' and 'provide guidance on' (which I address below), and moreover you seem to think the phrase from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists as quoted by Justice Black in Everson is a much worse summary of the First Amendment's intent than I do. But those things are beside the main point.
The main point is this: as Madison himself wrote (apparently in the part of his private writings that you didn't read), and as the framers agreed, the 'meaning' of the Constitution was its meaning as it would be understood by the ratifiers and by the courts that would have the job of applying it. No one among the framers thought that their 'intent' mattered a whit; what mattered was what they put into words, and more precisely what the ratifiers and the courts would understand those words to mean.
Those writings give us the insight into why they wrote what they wrote, and they gave further reasons and intentions of that document.
Again, this is beside the point. No one has argued that their private writings don't provide any insight or guidance into what they meant. What I, at least, have claimed is that their writings do not control the courts' interpretation of the Constitution. The courts are entitled to look at those writings if they think they're relevant (as Justice Black obviously did), but they don't have to and they're not bound to follow them if they do look at them.
The Constitution was never meant to be 'interpreted'.
Of course it was. Unless, that is, you think that all the delegates to the Constitutional Convention agreed about the precise meaning of phrases like 'necessary and proper' and 'privileges and immunities' and 'due process', and all the courts had to do was stick to what these phrases clearly and obviously meant.
As with their understanding of the judicial power, there was almost certainly a common 'core' of meaning that everybody intended (and, more importantly, that the ratifiers would have understood their words to include). But the suggestion that there was no room for interpretation by the courts, and that there wasn't supposed to be any, is hard to take seriously.
I don't think you have much appreciation for the amount of sheer compromise that went into the crafting of a document that delegates from the free states and the slave states could all agree on. There is a lot of 'play in the joints', and it's there deliberately.
You claim I am out of substantive arguments.
Yes, I do. I find that to be the case with people who resort to insulting my profession (or to insulting me based on my profession); it always, and I mean always, means that they can't think of anything to do but attack what they imagine my motives must be, because they don't see a way to address the substantive points at issue. It doesn't even pretend to be a reasoned response; it's nothing more than a nasty attack.
You cannot point to any portion of the Constitution that says it was, other than a claim that 'judicial power' means what YOU and your fellow lawyers say it means. Well, the private writings show that wasn't the intent of that phrase.
No, they do not. And more importantly, the debates on the Constitution do not. You will find the delegates rejecting a judicial veto (in which the judiciary would be involved in the actual process of legislation), but you will find time after time that they simply presume (and count on) that the judiciary has the power to refuse to enforce, even to strike down, unconstitutional laws. If you want references, go get a copy of Randy Barnett's Restoring the Lost Constitution and read chapter six; it's an excellent summary.
Courts have said that they divine the 'intent' of the Founders.
Have they? Which courts have said that?
So do not equate yourself with those men. Some of them may have had a background in law, but they knew the concept of honor, and they didn't seize power FOR themselves, but for the people they represented.
More insults (again in lieu of arguments, and again directed both at me personally and at my fellow skunks). I haven't seen any reason to change my mind about your lack of substantive arguments.
I generally give people three chances before I put them on my Life Is Too Short To Waste It Responding To These Idiots list. You've used up two of them. If you're going to use up your third one, there's no need to waste your time posting a reply.
Tell that to the kids who have been threatened with arrest for saying grace over their lunches.Oh, now that's quite an exaggeration there...
It's an exaggeration, but not a falsehood; unfortunately there are some idiot school officials out there who do think they're Constitutionally required to prevent prayer altogether. Fortunately, the ACLU sticks up for those students and even publishes free pamphlets telling those students what their legal rights really are.
Going to law school does not make you better at "rendering fair and impartial rulings". It only allows to to write laws so convoluted that you need to hire an attorney to interpret them if you are not one.
It may surprise you to learn that I agree with this point completely.
But don't get too cozy; I disagree with the rest of your post ;-).
Disagreeing is okay as long as you aren't billing me!. :^)
"I generally give people three chances before I put them on my Life Is Too Short To Waste It Responding To These Idiots list. You've used up two of them. If you're going to use up your third one, there's no need to waste your time posting a reply."
Sorry, I was slightly busy last night, and failed to get back to you...
You presume I actually care one way or another if you put me on your 'list' that affects me not. Unfortunately for you, getting put on a 'list' by some lawyer from Ohio isn't very high on my list of worries. Sorry to burst your self-important bubble. (To which you will reply in the negative...)
The courts chose to use a single reference in a letter to a church vice a body of writings that said we were founded on Christian principles, et al. They used that single letter as their "controlling'(or guiding, if you prefer) factor in their deliberations. They were wrong then, and no judge or court has seen fit to correct that error. That speaks poorly of the one thing they are supposed to bring to the table... judgement.
In Federalist 78, Hamilton wrote "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL (his emphasis), but merely judgement;and must ultimately depend on the aid of the executive arm...
Hamilton ultimately was wrong, as the courts have actively inserted themselves in nearly every aspect listed. He went so far as to say in Federalist 81 that he believed the dangers of the judiciary encroaching on the legislative authority a phantom. You may disagree, but the majority believe with good reason that such encroachment has occurred, and must be corrected. Hamilton did state that the will of the people is the uppermost power, above the legislative, and judiciary, and executive. We have found some judges strike down the will of the people on several occassions, on very dubious 'Constitutional' grounds.
You may not like it, but the judiciary has committed the greatest sin any branch of government can commit. It has abused, and then lost, the trust of the People. You may not like it, but your profession rates lower than the media in the polls measuring trust. Why is that? Because the lawyers have abused the trust that was placed in them by the legal system. It may not be you personally, but you are tainted by association (and your defense of the very practices that caused the loss of trust). Americans no longer believe that Justice walks the halls of our legal system, but her bastard child Process. As long as the i's are dotted and t's crossed all is hunky dory. Doesn't matter if the conclusions and rulings are wrong, just as long as Process is followed.
Your profession has lost its way, and corrupted the judiciary. Fix it, I beg of you, lest we are forced to fix it for you.
VERY Different Subject (placed here because I'm not sure yet how to get something to a whole ping list).
I just got the following via EMail from a friend. What do ya'll think?
Subject: GAS WAR!
Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $3.00 a gallon by the summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action.
Phillip Hollsworth, offered this good idea: This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more
of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them. BUT, whoever
thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work.
Please read it and join with us! By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $2.09 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost! of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at
$1.50- $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace....not sellers. With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How?
Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war.
Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do!! Now, don't whimp out on me at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!
I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers. If those three million get excited and ! pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!
Again, all You have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. (If you
don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is
send this to 10 people.... Well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician. But I am ... so trust me on this one.)
How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!! I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you! Acting together we can make a difference.
If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. PLEASE HOLD OUT UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
Hubert D. Rabon
CONGRESS HAS MADE NO LAW about prayer in Louisana. Therefore the Federal Courts have no jurisdiction.
I dare the ACLU to try that crap down here in Cajun country. When I was in high school, no athletic event or convocation ever started without a prayer. Nobody complained, and if somebody would, they would get their arses kicked.
Fascinating how the ACLU has time for this chicken*hit, but didn't have any time to defend Terry Schiavo's civil rights.
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.