Barrett bill aims to protect public prayer
BY TONY BAUGHMAN
U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett has filed legislation that he says will protect elected and appointed officials who want to pray in public.
"All we're doing is trying to clarify what the Constitution of the United States says," Barrett said Thursday afternoon. "What the Constitution says is 'freedom of religion,' not 'freedom from religion.'"
The bill, called the Public Prayer Protection Act of 2005, states that public prayer by government officials "does not violate the Establishment Clause" of the Constitution. It also would give Congress the authority to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts on the prayer issue.
"It takes the cases out of the federal court jurisdiction and puts it in the state courts," Barrett said. "The final authority would be with the state judges — and I know how our judges in South Carolina are selected. They are accountable to the people of the state, and I would rather decisions be made by those state judges rather than by activist federal judges."
In part, the bill reads that "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari or otherwise, any matter that relates to the establishment of religion involving an entity of the Federal government or a State or local government." The legislation would place the same appellate restrictions on the federal District Courts.
Further, the bill would declare that any federal court decision made before or after the enactment of the law "is not binding precedent on the court of any State, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States."
In filing the legislation, Barrett cited the case of self-proclaimed atheist Michael Newdow, who successfully argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of California that teacher-led recitation of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. That case was later dismissed by the Supreme Court in June 2004.
Barrett also targeted the assertion by the South Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union that a 2004 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, translates into a complete ban on prayer by public officials, including federal, state, and local legislators.
Darla Wynne, a professed Wiccan, successfully sued Great Falls to remove the name of Jesus Christ from the town council's pre-meeting prayers. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the Town's appeal of a lower court decision that the prayers supported one faith over others.
"Just because I'm a public official doesn't mean I'm not a citizen of the United States and protected under the Constitution of the United States," Barrett said.
Mike Cubelo, president of the Piedmont chapter of the ACLU of South Carolina in Greenville, said he expects the legislation to be fiercely challenged and ultimately fail.
"It's comical actually," he said. "I haven't spoken to any national people, but I would say we would fight it because it's clearly unconstitutional. It disrespects people of other religions."
Cubelo said that citing the Great Falls case was off-base because the state courts also upheld that decision.
"We have the courts and the Constitution on our side," he said. "Apparently, Barrett and (S.C. Attorney General Henry) McMaster don't respect the Constitution if it doesn't agree with their beliefs. They would prefer Christianity to take precedent over the Constitution."
Barrett concedes that his bill faces a tough fight in Congress, even if it gets out of committee.
"We've got an uphill battle. No doubt about it," he said. "But it's the right thing to do. It's what the Constitution says. We're going to get back to what the Founding Fathers said.
Barrett bill aims to protect public prayer
U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett has filed legislation that he says will protect elected and appointed officials who want to pray in public. "All we're doing is trying to clarify what the Constitution of the United States says," Barrett said Thursday afternoon. "What the Constitution says is 'freedom of religion,' not 'freedom from religion.'"
The bill, called the Public Prayer Protection Act of 2005, states that public prayer by government officials "does not violate the Establishment Clause" of the Constitution. It also would give Congress the authority to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts on the prayer issue.
"It takes the cases out of the federal court jurisdiction and puts it in the state courts," Barrett said. "The final authority would be with the state judges — and I know how our judges in South Carolina are selected. They are accountable to the people of the state, and I would rather decisions be made by those state judges rather than by activist federal judges."
In part, the bill reads that "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari or otherwise, any matter that relates to the establishment of religion involving an entity of the Federal government or a State or local government." The legislation would place the same appellate restrictions on the federal District Courts.
Further, the bill would declare that any federal court decision made before or after the enactment of the law "is not binding precedent on the court of any State, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States."
In filing the legislation, Barrett cited the case of self-proclaimed atheist Michael Newdow, who successfully argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of California that teacher-led recitation of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. That case was later dismissed by the Supreme Court in June 2004.
Barrett also targeted the assertion by the South Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union that a 2004 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, translates into a complete ban on prayer by public officials, including federal, state, and local legislators.
Darla Wynne, a professed Wiccan, successfully sued Great Falls to remove the name of Jesus Christ from the town council's pre-meeting prayers. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the Town's appeal of a lower court decision that the prayers supported one faith over others.
"Just because I'm a public official doesn't mean I'm not a citizen of the United States and protected under the Constitution of the United States," Barrett said.
Mike Cubelo, president of the Piedmont chapter of the ACLU of South Carolina in Greenville, said he expects the legislation to be fiercely challenged and ultimately fail.
"It's comical actually," he said. "I haven't spoken to any national people, but I would say we would fight it because it's clearly unconstitutional. It disrespects people of other religions."
Cubelo said that citing the Great Falls case was off-base because the state courts also upheld that decision.
"We have the courts and the Constitution on our side," he said. "Apparently, Barrett and (S.C. Attorney General Henry) McMaster don't respect the Constitution if it doesn't agree with their beliefs. They would prefer Christianity to take precedent over the Constitution."
Barrett concedes that his bill faces a tough fight in Congress, even if it gets out of committee.
"We've got an uphill battle. No doubt about it," he said. "But it's the right thing to do. It's what the Constitution says. We're going to get back to what the Founding Fathers said.
posted by SCGOP at 2:29 PM
<< Home