Posted on 05/31/2005 11:46:40 AM PDT by ViLaLuz
| GPO's PDF Display | Congressional Record References | Bill Summary & Status | Printer Friendly Display - 2,455 bytes.[Help] | XML Display [Help] |
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
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
A BILL
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.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 '.
(a) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights- Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a)' before the first sentence; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(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.'.
GO John Hostettler, make them fight for their own money.
Where's the part where we can get a bounty for bringing in a furry ACLU pelt?
http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/003059.html
Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., filed a measure to amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorneys fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. If you want to corral the ACLU, then consider a letter or email to your Congressman urging them to cosponsor this legislation. Here's a short description of the bill, it's too new to have been published in thomas.loc.gov yet.
Short and simple. If enacted it would cut off the life-blood of the ACLU and other vampires that feed on our country.
ACLU ping
Thanks John Hostettler, for bringing this forward. GO INDIANA!
I believe so. Please help get news of this bill out far and wide. The battle is beginning.
Hello muawiyah... It's not there because snakes don't have furry pelts!
Darned, just darned~! Maybe we could make belts out of them ~ get a big shiny truck driver belt, or maybe one of those race car driver things.
As I have previously expressed in various posts, I do have some problems with some aspects of the Christian Right's agenda, but I would support this act. Too much time, money and energy has been spent in trying to get God out of public life while screaming about separation of Church and State (we all know the left's interpretation of this is absolutely false). As many in FR have expressed, why are "atheists" so angry, afraid, or whatever about something they claim doesn't exist? It's more as if they were God-haters or Judeo-Christian haters. I have never seen the ACLU, American Atheist Society or any other group that has a penchant for filing law suits in reference to the separation clause do so when it comes to let's say "Pagan-Wicca groups". Not that pagans shouldn't have the right to express their beliefs publicly as well (Hey I think solstice celebrations are cool.....don't know if I really want to join a coven though). This Act will clarify or more possibly force the Supremes to identify what the separation of church and state really means as well as taking the wind out of the ACLU.
Trying to cleanup these kind of snakes is hard. The garbage they live in is hard to get off.
ping
Thank you! Please spread the word. We can cut the ACLU off from the taxpayer teat.
Thanks for the link, Jay777, you are awesome!
Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) - http://www.alliancedefensefund.org
Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) - http://www.thomasmore.org
American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) - http://www.aclj.org
The Rutherford Institute - http://www.rutherford.org/
Stop the ACLU Coalition (GREATLY ORGANIZED ACTIVIST SITE..PLEASE JOIN) - http://www.stoptheaclu.org
Here are a few examples of how two of those organizations are fighting back:
ADF Contacts Over 3,600 School Districts Over Attempts To Censor Christmas
ADF: 700 lawyers ready to fight ACLU lawsuits
ADF: Pentagons' Warning About Boyscouts Is Absurd
Thomas More Law Center: Town of Palm Beach Pays $50,000 In Attorney Fees Apologizes To Women In Nativity Lawsuit
Additional information:
The ACLU must be destroyed: Joseph Farah supports Boy Scouts, urges Americans to fight back
Citizens mobilized to stop ACLU (seeks to consign group to 'ash heap of history')
ACLU fulfilling communist agenda
Revealing FACTS on the ACLU from its own writings
See how YOUR Senator or Representative ranks with the ACLU
This yahoo group just started on December 3, 2004 and is looking for new members
The Center For Reclaiming America (petitions to congress)
American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy
"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal." - Roger Baldwin, ACLU founder, Harvard Reunion Book, 1935
"The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on." - William Z. Foster, ACLU co-founder and former chairman, Communist Party USA.
Let me know if you would like to join my ACLU ping list
Thank you so very much for brining this to my attention. I have called my Congressman.
Jay777, please add me to your list. Thanks!
Thank you angelsonmyside, for calling your congressman. Please spread the word! Let's stop the ACLU from exploiting the taxpayers.
I will add you!
Contacted Rep. Nunes. Done.
This is Bad legislation! Your going after the wrong target. There is no “tax payer” funding of the ACLU.
Get after the Judges. Not the law that let’s YOU recover expenses.
So where do governments get their money when they have to pay up? The taxpayer.
Get after the Judges. Not the law that let’s YOU recover expenses.
I agree we also need to get after the judges. But why should we have to pay the ACLU lawyers' fee (via our taxes to cities, towns, etc.) just because someone is "offended"?
This isn't going to stop recovery from real damage, such as physical injury or property damage. It's only going to stop collection of fees in cases where someone is "offended."
Religion Fights A No Profit Situation
Indiana Rep. John Hostettler (R) is getting ready to face down Goliath using the very stone that has been hurled at the religious elements in government, schools, and other public entities that have been the recipient of recent lawsuit engagements by the ACLU (i.e., the law). It is Rep. Hostettler's intention to introduce an amendment to Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 which will prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorneys fees in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings.
Civil rights cases historically were based on the premise that the injured party was mentally, physically or monetarily injured, not as in recent events offended as those who have taken issue with prayer in school or religious decorations placed in government buildings or public squares. The ACLU has changed it's litigation standards over the years. The reason is money. Bring in 10 attorneys like the ACLU does on their cases and the cost of litigating gets real expensive to those who have the misfortune to be named defendants in the case. Most school systems and small government entities do not have the financial reserves to fight an army of attorneys. So through intimidation by threat of lawsuit many who would fight, can't.
To find out how to contact your state Representatives and Senators, visit the Stop the ACLU website. It is time for Goliath to be knocked down.
http://isitjust.blogspot.com/2005/05/house-members-fight-aclus-ill-gotten.html
House Members Fight ACLU's Ill-Gotten Gains
Members of the House of Representatives have introduced legislation to limit monetary rewards to reimburse legal fees by those who would seek to sue over religious issues. It is called the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005'.
I first posted on this on May 8th (read previous post). As I stated in that article, unless a litigated case can prove damage beyond a perceived state of being offended, the case will fall into this Act's jurisdiction and no monetary reimbursement for attorney fees by the party that sues can be awarded. This will reduce greatly the amount of frivolous lawsuits, as seen recently in the news, that the ACLU has initiated against schools, cities, counties, and states in which religious art in public places or on public grounds was the basis for the lawsuit. Additionally, those lawsuits stemming from "a moment of silence", prayer in public places, or any other religious issue in which the damage is an "offense" and not one that causes physical or monetary damage will fall under this Act.
Let your Congressmen know that you support this action. For too long now, the ACLU has initiated all manners of frivolous lawsuits that have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary litigation for taxpayers. The way the ACLU supports itself is through litigation of this nature. With the enactment of the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005' the financial funding for the ACLU will be dealt a huge blow. They do not work "pro bono" as they would like everyone to believe. Their attorneys will not pursue litigation that does not line their pockets one way or the other. Their work is not a charitable work for the greater good of mankind. It is all a matter of litigation for profit for the ACLU. It is time this stops.
Read more on this at Stop the ACLU.
Thanks BigFinn. I contacted my state senators and rep last night.
Now let's continue to spread awareness of this bill.
This law has been turned on its head by the ACLU. They use this law to help fund their campaign against the very small schools and local governments it was meant to protect. This amendment does not abolish the law anyway! It only protects local and State officials from being sued for expressing their religion.
Thanks for the ping on H.R. 2679
It is a start though.
By the way I would have contacted my State (D) Sen but he has been indicted on extrition charges and had to resign before getting the big boot.
One down.....
A couple more FR links related to this topic:
When Good Legislation is Abused - Fix It!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1414511/posts
And this one is especially interesting because it takes place in Rep. John Hostettler's home state...
ICLU wants Jesus out of prayers in House, files suit
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1414517/posts
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=48219
American Legion: When Good Legislation is Abused -- Fix It
6/1/2005 10:31:00 AM
What happens when Your rights are trampled on by some lefty manned government
entity?
Will you take your case to the courts or let it ride because of the cost?
You win! Should you not recover your costs?
Street preachers arrested on Strip(ACLU defending)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1408572/posts
for later pingout.
Come on now. This is ALREADY HAPPENING.
Right now, over and over again, unethical lawyers and secular groups are taking away your civil rights. They are the ones running around suing those exercising their first amendment right to religious expression.
It's ridiculous to equate civil rights actually being trampled to being "offended."
The secular groups do it because they hate religion so much, they are "offended" at every expression. They are the fanatics pushing us toward a godless socialist society.
The lawyers do it because they've discovered they can sue or threaten to sue and get paid anyway.
The bill puts into perspective the difference between actual civil rights from being "offended" over any mention of anything religious. It plugs the loophole that allows unethical lawyers to exploit public funds provided by the taxpayers.
This bill isn't about taking away anyones' rights. Didn't you read any of the posts to you? Or are you one of those who will say anything irregardless of the facts to stop something you don't agree with? I suspect the latter.
Thanks little jeremiah. Would you consider sending your ping list over here so we can spread the word for this bill? I've only seen ONE ARTICLE so far covering this very important development in the war against the ACLU.
A bit long, but this has been republished and contains lots of valuable timely information:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4494
The ACLU campaign to advance communist goals
May 14th, 2005
By William J. Becker Jr.
Shuffling out of the movie theater last weekend, I emitted a silent scream, frustrated by yet another example of Christianity under assault, the tumescent epic, “Kingdom of Heaven,” a film so utterly contemptuous of Christians and adoring of Muslims that a leading authority on the Crusades branded it “Osama Bin Laden's version of history.”
“What insane times we live in,” one film critic notes. “Here we are in the midst of the War on Terror, and all Hollywood can do is continually bash Christianity.”
In an industry historically known for coddling communists (the blacklist, Jane Fonda, Stone, Spielberg and others traipsing off to Cuba to glorify Castro) one tends to surrender to the unregenerate status quo. Only through the fortitude of pioneers like Jason Apuzzo and Govindini Murty, whose Liberty Film Festival departs from the script by promoting works of an emerging class of conservative filmmakers, can truthful depictions of history get told.
The opiate of Hollywood fare disguised as high-minded popular culture further dulls the minds of a culture already narcotized by a steady supply of anti-Christian rhetoric. The “mainstream” media remains complicit, as evidenced by Harper’s May issue, exposing “America’s Most Powerful Megachurch,” and the “hate” of “national religious broadcasters.”
“America,” said Joseph Stalin, “is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”
Hollywood and the media certainly play major roles in the subtle campaign to subvert Judeo-Christian traditions, but they pose a lesser threat than the judiciary and activist organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund, who represent its driving force.
In Southern California especially, these activists have targeted the Christian cross with glorious success. Examples abound:
Government Seal Cases: The ACLU Foundation of Southern California threatened to sue the County of Los Angeles and the City of Redlands unless depictions of the cross were removed from their official seals.
War Memorial Cases: The ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties succeeded in its legal effort to dismantle the 43-foot tall Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross, a landmark for more than 50 years in La Jolla. The ACLU Foundation of Southern California was equally successful in obtaining an order dismantling a cross that has been a World War I memorial fixture on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert since 1932.
Though battles have been lost, the war rages on:
In Los Angeles, two lawsuits were filed against the County. The Thomas More Law Center, of which I am affiliated counsel but not in their action, sued the County under an Establishment Clause theory. U.S. District Judge S. James Otero sustained the ACLU’s demurrer. The case is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
The Claremont Institute, the Individual Rights Foundation, the Orange County firm of Wagner Lautsch and I sued in Superior Court under state and federal constitutional theories as well as under a taxpayer waste theory pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 526a. This action has been stayed pending the outcome of the federal appeal. I am also vice-chair of the Committee to Save the Seal Ordinance petition drive, the purpose of which is to place a measure on a June 6, 2006, ballot putting the question whether the cross should remain on the seal to voters.
In Redlands, a similar measure will appear on a November ballot.
In San Diego, the City Council will hear argument on May 17 over whether to consider a transfer of the Mount Soledad property to private owners.
And on April 8, 2005, after an unsuccessful appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and without media fanfare, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Timlin signed an order requiring the immediate dismantling of the Sunrise Rock cross. That case, Buono v. Norton, has drawn the wrath of the American Legion, which is approaching the defeat with a novel solution.
The Legion passed a resolution calling on Congress to amend 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to bar recovery of attorney fees to the prevailing party in cases filed for the purpose of removing and destroying religious symbols located on public property.
Rees Lloyd, a past commander of a Legion post in Banning, California, and himself a former ACLU attorney, drafted the resolution. This week, U.S. Representative John Hostettler (R-Indiana) is expected to introduce the Public Expression of Religion Act. Its goal is to drive out one incentive to file lawsuits where no one is complaining and no one is actually injured. The ACLU pockets the change even when delegating work to pro bono attorneys.
In a recent Daily Journal news item (5-6-05), attention was drawn to the measure, but in publicizing it, those attorneys who are expected to oppose the measure were classified as “civil rights” lawyers while those of us who would support it were not.
The report led by stating that supporters hope it will have a “chilling effect on civil rights attorneys.” Later in the piece, the reporter noted that “civil liberties lawyers warn the measure, if successful, would bode ill for anyone tackling an issue unpopular with a member of Congress.”
Identified as “an advocate for keeping the cross on the [County] seal,” I somehow failed to rate the civil rights lawyer tag.
But if I am not a civil rights lawyer, defending the rights of people whose traditions and heritage are under attack, then what? Who really believes that a cross in the desert, on a hilltop or on a seal establishes a government-endorsed religion? Who honestly believes their tax money is working to do any more than to honor war veterans or the community’s heritage?
Communicating the message of religious liberty certainly presents challenges, not the least of which is convincing the media, or Hollywood for that matter, that defending the cross is beneficial to our society and in fact crucial to preserving our civil rights and liberties.
When the ACLU cleverly named itself a “civil liberties” union in 1920, its idea of civil liberty was hardly consistent with what the U.S. Constitution’s framers had in mind.
“I am for socialism,” wrote ACLU founder Roger Baldwin in 1936. “I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
Communism, a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society, remains the goal. Imagine a world without religion, the utopian song asks without imagining the tyranny of a classless society.
When U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite composed his analysis of the Establishment Clause in Reynolds v. United States, a Free Exercise case, he relied on Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association and Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and State.”
Strange that he would examine the Establishment Clause at all since it was not in issue. Stranger still was his reliance on Jefferson’s letter and his attraction to the “wall of separation” phrase, parroted by judges and liberal activists ever since.
As Justice Waite even observed, Jefferson was in France when the language of the First Amendment was finalized and adopted. It was James Madison’s version that we venerate today. “It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted,” Waite wrote. Jefferson’s letter was a peevish response.
When Justice Hugo Black lifted the Reynolds analysis in Everson v. Board of Education (1945), he resisted the urge to compare what other founding fathers thought about the matter. “The wall of separation” was thus enshrined in our national consciousness and divides us still.
If the ACLU were to support the Hostettler bill, it would go a long way toward proving that they aren’t profiteers at the expense of people of faith and believers in the sanctity of tradition. But I suspect they will commit all their resources toward winning another tiny battle in their classless and unholy crusade. As Memorial Day approaches, keep it in mind.
"The [American] Legion passed a resolution calling on Congress to amend 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to bar recovery of attorney fees to the prevailing party in cases filed for the purpose of removing and destroying religious symbols located on public property.
Rees Lloyd, a past commander of a Legion post in Banning, California, and himself a former ACLU attorney, drafted the resolution. This week, U.S. Representative John Hostettler (R-Indiana) is expected to introduce the Public Expression of Religion Act. Its goal is to drive out one incentive to file lawsuits where no one is complaining and no one is actually injured. The ACLU pockets the change even when delegating work to pro bono attorneys."
More information on the topic at hand. Details about ACLU profits are found about halfway through the article:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0083.html
High Noon at Sunrise Rock
CHRISTOPHER LEVENICK
*** If Buono v. Norton stands, the distance between the cross at Sunrise Rock and the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery will have effectively disappeared. It is only a matter of time until someone visits that field of heroes and takes offense at all the religious symbols inscribed in marble. ***
Just west of the California-Nevada border, 11 miles south of the freeway that connects San Diego with Las Vegas, a small hill rises above the sun-baked floor of the Mojave Desert. Atop that hill stands a six-foot cross, fashioned out of four-inch-diameter steel pipe. That dusty hilltop and its lonely marker just might become the scene of the most significant church-state controversy since last year's fight over the Pledge of Allegiance.
In 1934, a gritty prospector named J. Riley Bembry gathered a couple of his fellow World War I veterans at Sunrise Rock. Together they erected the cross, in honor of their fallen comrades. The memorial has been privately maintained ever since, with small groups still occasionally meeting to remember the nation's veterans.
A wrinkle developed in 1994, when the federal government declared the surrounding area a national preserve. With the cross now located on newly public land, the memorial soon caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union. Working with Frank Buono, a retired park ranger turned professional activist, the ACLU demanded that the National Park Service tear down the cross.
Mr. Buono insists that his seeing the monument ("two to four times a year") violates his civil rights. A federal district court found in his favor, and the decision was subsequently upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Last-ditch attempts to deed Sunrise Rock over to the local Veterans of Foreign Wars were struck down in April. Defenders of the memorial hope to appeal, but their options are narrowing.
The ACLU, however, has made out quite nicely. Not only has it prevailed in the courts to date, but it has managed to pocket $63,000. Owing to a quirk in civil-rights law, the taxpayer once again ended up paying the ACLU for pressing a highly controversial church-state lawsuit.
The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 specifies that anyone bringing an even partly successful civil-rights suit may have the plaintiff pay all legal fees for both parties, a discretionary award that is routinely granted. Such fee-reversals are not permitted to successful defendants.
Congress meant for the law to help citizens with little or no money, but since then wealthy and powerful organizations have perverted that intention. They use the specter of massive attorney fees to force their secularist agenda on small school districts, cash-strapped municipalities and, now, veterans' memorials. According to Rees Lloyd, a former ACLU staff lawyer, such litigation is "manifestly in terrorem," intended to terrify defendants into settling out of court.
And what if the defendants don't knuckle under? For advocacy groups that use staff or volunteer lawyers as plaintiffs' counsel, the result is pure gravy. If they lose their cases, they have lost no money. If they win, defendants pay attorney's fees at the private sector's market rate, which the advocacy groups can keep for themselves.
Working to amend the Attorney's Fees Award Act is Rep. John Hostettler, a Republican from Indiana. Yesterday, he reintroduced the Public Expression of Religion Act, under which plaintiffs could still ask the courts to prevent governmental endorsement of religion — but could no longer soak the public for the privilege of being sued.
By eliminating the financial incentives for advocacy groups to take on trivial church-state cases, the measure would actually help restore the civil-rights law to its intended purpose. Equally important, it would signal that Congress is exercising its duty to correct the judicial branch when it goes astray of the Constitution.
Such is clearly the case here. If Buono v. Norton stands, the distance between the cross at Sunrise Rock and the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery will have effectively disappeared. It is only a matter of time until someone visits that field of heroes and takes offense at all the religious symbols inscribed in marble. Then the courts will have a hard time devising a principle by which those thousands of crosses on federal land are not as unconstitutional as the one in the desert.
Undoing the unholy mess the courts have made of the Establishment Clause will be the work of many years. In the meantime, Congress should at least deter those who would rather destroy veterans' memorials than allow them any religious symbols whatsoever. As Memorial Day approaches, swatting their hand from the taxpayer's pocket is a good place to start.
An interview with Rees Lloyd from American Legion Magazine:
http://www.legion.org/?section=publications&subsection=pubs_mag_index&content=pub_mag_values
The American Legion Magazine
May, 2005
The Law Against Values
Attorney Rees Lloyd argues the ACLU should not collect profits from taxpayer-funded fees.
In a remote area of the Mojave Desert, atop a rock outcrop, stands a lone cross. Just two pipes tied together, it was erected by a private citizen in 1934 to honor the service of World War I veterans. But when President Clinton issued an order incorporating the site into the Mojave National Preserve, the American Civil Liberties Union saw a golden opportunity. In 2000, the organization filed a federal suit on behalf of retired Forest Service employee Frank Buono of Oregon, who claims to suffer a civil-rights violation every time he drives back to California and sees the cross. A district court ruled for the ACLU and ordered the cross removed.
So far, due to Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. Code Section 1988, the ACLU has made $63,000 in attorney fees off the case. Although Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., succeeded in passing legislation swapping land with a private owner and placing the cross on private land, to be cared for by veterans, the ACLU is back in court trying to nullify the deal as a First Amendment violation.
Longtime civil-rights attorney Rees Lloyd believes Congress never intended such abuse of the law. A past commander of San Gorgonio Post 428 in Banning, Calif., he authored American Legion Resolution 326, which calls on Congress to amend 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and end judges' authority to award attorney fees in cases brought to remove or destroy religious symbols. In a recent interview, Lloyd explained the purpose of the law and how the ACLU exploits it to impose a secular agenda.
The American Legion Magazine: What is 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, and how does the ACLU profit from it?
Rees Lloyd: The Civil Rights Attorney Fee Act was intended to provide an incentive to attorneys to take on representation of victims of civil-rights violations who could not afford legal counsel and thereby to fulfill the promise of the Civil Rights Act and certain specified federal statutes. Instead, its good intentions have been exploited by the ACLU to reap enormous profits through what I believe is manifestly in terrorem - terrorizing - litigation to enforce its secular political, cultural and social will on elected officials and the American people by lawsuits attacking Boy Scouts and every symbol of America's religious history and heritage in the public square.
While the language of 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 is simple, it has been used and abused by the ACLU, as construed by other unelected lawyers, i.e., judges, who hand out enormous hourly attorney fees to the ACLU in such a way as to defeat the intent of elected representatives of the American people, Congress, and to terrorize elected officials at local levels to cower and surrender. Q. How much has the ACLU received through taxpayer-funded attorney's fees?
A: The ACLU, posturing to the public that it acts on principle and pro bono, in the public interest and without fee, in fact has raked in enormous profits in lawsuits brought under the "establishment clause."
These lawsuits are nationwide, coast to coast, and run literally into millions of dollars in the pockets of the ACLU in "attorney fee awards" - although in fact neither the ACLU nor its mascot plaintiffs have incurred any actual attorney fees.
As a onetime ACLU staff attorney, I know that the ACLU recruits attorneys to take on its cases without fee, and that the ACLU does not charge attorney fees to the persons it uses as plaintiffs.
Large firms often provide attorneys from their pro bono units at no cost to the ACLU; the mascot plaintiffs of the ACLU in fact pay no attorney fees; lawsuits to destroy religious symbols, particularly the Christian cross, are as easy as shooting ducks in a barrel as judges follow precedent, in "judge-made law" pertaining to the meaning of the "establishment clause"; and the ACLU achieves its secular political aims, laughing all the way to the bank.
As to the total amount reaped by the ACLU, I do not know of any definitive study that has gathered up all the attorney-fee awards granted to the ACLU across the nation. It is, however, in the millions.
Q: Why won't judges deny these fees to the ACLU?
A: Congress did not require judges to award attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. Congress made attorney-fee awards purely discretionary. Judges have interpreted that to mean that a prevailing party is to receive "reasonable" attorney fees, even if there are in fact no actual attorney fees. "Market rate" is used. In large cities, that can be a starting point of about $350 an hour.
So, in practice, what is a "reasonable" attorney fee? Whatever one lawyer, i.e., a judge, wants to give to another lawyer, taxpayers be damned.
As far as is known, not one single judge has ever simply dared to say "no" to the ACLU. Why should they? They are lawyers handing taxpayer funds to other lawyers; the fox is in the chicken coop.
Congress should take back the authority it gave to award such fees and forbid them in cases under the "establishment clause." If such cases must be brought by the ACLU, it should have at least the decency to pay its own way.
Q: Hasn't the ACLU done some good in the past? When did it cross the line? A: I am not an inveterate ACLU-hater. I believe that the ACLU, in the past, did much good, and still can, in defending freedom of speech, which I believe was its primary mission. Many of the early free-speech cases, especially in the area of labor when unions were forming, were won by ordinary working people defended by the ACLU. That I respect and admire.
While I respect that early work of the ACLU, I believe whatever good it did in the past has been vitiated by the harm it has done in the present by its fanatical secularism and apparent abandonment of common sense.
I was admitted to the bar in November 1979 and worked at the ACLU for approximately two years. At that time, there was not a "church-state project" and if there was a focus of "separation of church and state," I was not aware of it, perhaps because of my concentration on rights in the workplace.
But then Hollywood money came in to fund church-state litigation at the ACLU of Southern California. Norman Lear and other millionaires poured money into the ACLU. That influx of Hollywood money, I believe, marked what I now perceive as a crossing of the line into fanatical secular attacks on every symbol of America's religious history and heritage in the public square.
Q: Many charge the ACLU with being "anti-Christian." Is this true?
A: The ACLU is much too politically correct to ever be expressly or rhetorically anti-Christian. It would react with horror to the suggestion that it is impure. But it is objectively anti-Christian. It is indicted by what it does, not by what it says.
The ACLU is quintessentially secular. I totally disassociate myself from attacks on the ACLU that say it is a Jewish organization with an anti-Christian bias. The ACLU's faith is not in Judaism, it is in secularism.
It has to be recognized that the ACLU's mission is political. It is an organization of elitists convinced of their sincerity, goodness, intelligence and right to social-engineer American culture and government without ever having to be elected by the people they would govern, and to accomplish their purpose through people like themselves: equally elitist lawyers sitting as judges over mere mortals.
What common sense would dictate a lawsuit against that lone cross in the Mojave Desert honoring World War I veterans? And persecuting the Boy Scouts? The philosopher George Santyana once said, "Fanaticism is the doubling of passion, while halving reason." There you have modern ACLU fanaticism.
The Boy Scouts are not the enemy of America. Veterans and memorials that mark their service to the nation are not the enemies of America. Symbols of our American religious history and heritage in the public square are not threats to our American freedom. Those symbols which the ACLU now so fanatically attacks are but reminders of our American roots, our American heritage, the foundation from which this magnificent edifice of American freedom arose.
Q: Can 42 U.S. Code 1988 be changed?
A: Congress must take the lead to clarify 42 U.S.C. 1988 to exclude lawsuits related to acknowledgement of God. Besides The American Legion, many organizations desire to see the statute modified, such as CourtZero.org, Alliance Defense Fund, Thomas More Law Center, American Center for Law and Justice, The Rutherford Institute and Stop the ACLU Coalition.
In the 108th Congress, on Nov. 21, 2003, U.S. Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., introduced a bill, H.R. 3609, titled "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2003" that would restrict remedies under 42 U.S.C. 1988 in establishment clause litigation to injunctive relief. The congressman intends to reintroduce the bill in the 109th Congress.
Q: American Legion Res. 326 calls for Congress to reform 42 U.S. Code 1988. What can Legionnaires do to help?
A: American Legion Resolution 326, Preservation of the Mojave Desert World War I Memorial, is a concrete measure with which we can stand up to the ACLU and not merely complain. It calls on Congress to amend 42 U.S.C. 1988 to rescind the authority to award attorney fees it gave to judges in cases under the "establishment clause" to "remove or destroy religious symbols."
All Legionnaires, all veterans, all Americans, should unite behind this simple measure, across party and ideological lines, to demand reform and to end this abuse by which the ACLU has waged war against the Boy Scouts, all symbols of our American religious heritage, and now even veterans memorials.
No one should doubt the threat that the ACLU's lawsuit against the Mojave Desert veterans memorial represents: it is the first time in history that private parties have been allowed to sue a veterans memorial to remove a religious symbol. The same legal principles the court followed under the "establishment clause" to order that solitary cross in the desert removed are applicable to all the crosses and Stars of David in our national cemeteries, and the 9,000 at Normandy Beach.
Communicate with your post, district, area, department and National Commander Thomas P. Cadmus. Communicate your support to amend this law to your elected officials. Demand to know where they stand on the issue.
Homosexual Agenda PLUS Moral Absolutes Ping - Definitely a two-fer.
Try to read this one - as you all know, the ACLU is the archetype for promoting all that is evil and supressing almost all that is good. And one of the worst things is that the ACLU gets tremendous amounts of OUR tax money to work its evil.
This must stop.
Let me know if you want on/off either pinglist.
Note: Don't forget that the ACLU head honcho is forget-his-first-name Romero, a noted homosexual activist lawyer.
ACLU ping of interest.
Thank you little jeremiah. I didn't know that about the director of the ACLU, and found info on that. It explains a lot about where the ACLU is heading, and it's not good. Here it is--but be forwarned--BARF ALERT:
ANTHONY D. ROMERO IS NEW ACLU EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; GAY SON OF LATINO IMMIGRANTS TO HEAD PREMIER CIVIL LIBERTIES GROUP
http://www.aclusandiego.org/new_director.html
bookmark
Killrighty had brought up concerns with Hostettler's new bill that would help keep your tax money out of the hands of the ACLU. He asked a very good question!
"Would this bill’s effect would be to deny first amendment protection to the poor who would then be unable to sue to have their rights protected if they are unable to afford an attorney out of pocket?"
I'm happy to say that I have an answer! I talked to a legislative aid to one of the co-sponsor's of the bill. This bill is specifically designed towards "establishment clause" cases, and would not apply to "free exercize clause" cases. In other words, it would help curb groups like the ACLU from violating people's right to express their religion in the public sphere. It does not stop their ability to do so, but takes your money out of their hands if they do so. Furthermore, it could not be used in a case against an individual expressing their religion. So the poor people need not worry about attorney fees if their right to free exercize of their religion comes about. This legislation would not affect them. It will however affect the ACLU pocketbook!
Please check out Jay777's Stop the ACLU website. There is a lot of good information there.
HELP STOP THE FORMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THROUGH EXTORTION!
Become an Original Co-sponsor of the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2001
Deadline: March 26th
Dear Colleague:
I will be re-introducing the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), formerly known as H.R. 2057 in the 106thCongress.
PERA frees teachers, school board members, county commissioners, nurses in public hospitals, and all other state and local officials from the fear that they will be held personally and monetarily responsible for damages and attorney's fees because of their expression of religion.
This bill also frees schools, school boards, and county and local government from fear that they will be held responsible for attorney's fees because of the expression of religion by employees. Furthermore, PERA fosters a climate where constitutional law is made through deliberation, not by fear.
PERA does NOT limit anyone's ability to seek injunctive relief (court orders) for perceived violations of the Establishment Clause by state and local government officials. PERA does NOT affect-in any way-claims against the government arising out of the free exercise of religion, free speech, or any other civil right. If you would like to co-sponsor this bill please contact Tom Anderson or Duffy Sabella in my office by Monday, March 26th at x5-4636.
Sincerely,
John N. Hostettler
Member of Congress
I notice that the state of Indiana has been under attack recently, by various operatives from the left. Could this be part of a liberal strategy to infect and destroy a red state?
This article is very interesting:
Indiana Cases Scrutinize Prayer, Planned Parenthood
by Pete Winn, associate editor (Focus on the Family Citizen Link
SUMMARY: Indiana courts weigh prayer by legislators, and an apparent Planned Parenthood cover-up.
The Hoosier State got caught in the cross-hairs of the Culture Wars this week.
First, an Indianapolis judge ruled Tuesday that Planned Parenthood of Indiana must let state officials review the medical records of 84 girls younger than 14 who visited Planned Parenthood clinics.
Then, across town in a separate action, the Indiana affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit asking a federal judge to bar references to Jesus Christ in the daily prayers delivered before the state House of Representatives.
Curt Smith, executive director of the Indiana Family Institute (IFI) in Indianapolis, explained what happened in the Planned Parenthood decision.
"Planned Parenthood filed suit here in Indiana," he said, "trying to restrict the attorney general in his role as our chief Medicaid fraud investigator from finding out what's going on with Medicaid funds for 12 and 13-year-old girls, who have come in for either sexually transmitted disease, or to get birth control.
"A good judge, Judge Ken Johnson, in family court here in Indianapolis, agreed with the attorney general and agreed with a common-sense principle that says, 'We need to protect kids, and particularly when tax dollars are being used, we're not going to allow these kids to be abused.' So the effort did not pay off for Planned Parenthood."
Planned Parenthood of Indiana said it will appeal the ruling, which it called "a fishing expedition."
"This ruling puts everyone's medical privacy at risk, shaking the very foundation of the doctor-patient relationship that is at the heart of good health care," Betty Cockrum, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Indiana told the Indianapolis Star.
But in his ruling, Judge Johnson specifically countered the abortion provider's principal argument when he wrote: "The great public interest in the reporting, investigation, and prosecution of child abuse trumps even the patient's interest in privileged communication with her physician because, in the end, both the patient and the state are benefited by the disclosure."
Besides, Smith said, Indiana law is very clear on the matter.
"Any sexual contact with someone under 14 is a crime, period," he said. "Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit trying to prevent authorities from investigating what are crimes."
On the other side of Indianapolis, meanwhile, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) filed a federal lawsuit against Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma. The legal group is going after the speaker for allowing prayers in the opening minutes of the session of the House of Representatives -- specifically, prayers which include references to Jesus Christ, to the Blood of Jesus, or which are, to quote the attorneys of the ICLU, "evangelical in nature."
The lawsuit specifically objects to certain Christian phrases -- including "In the strong name of Jesus our Savior," "We pray this in Christ's name," and "I appeal to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- and says they exclude people who are not Christians.
"The suit does not seek to prevent opening the House session with prayers," said ICLU Legal Director Ken Falk in a statement, but his group wants "respect for the beliefs of all Indiana residents and the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all."
Micah Clark, president of the American Family Association of Indiana, said the suit is really a slap in the face to people of faith -- especially in light of what it asks the government to do.
"I am very concerned," said Clark, "when the government tells people, 'You can pray in front of the statehouse, or before a session, but here's how you have to pray. I think that goes against a minister's free speech rights, and I'm hopeful that the suit will be dismissed.
"What do you expect a legislator or a minister to say when they come and they are asked to give a prayer? Are they supposed to pray only like my 3-year-old, 'God is great, God is good. Now we thank Him for this food?' "
IFI's Curt Smith sees a link between the two cases -- not a direct one, necessarily, but certainly an overarching connection.
"What I see happening is the liberal worldview is on its last legs and the only place they can get any kind of hearing is in the courts," Smith said.
He made this comparison:
"In one part of the courts system, a judge who has common sense, who is a parent, said, 'No. We're not going to protect the privacy of 12- and 13-year-olds who are being sexually abused. They need help. They need a doctor first, and then they need the protection of the state, because something's wrong, and they are being sexually exploited.'
"On the other side of the capital city, the ICLU files in federal court a challenge to these prayers. I think in both cases, the left has been reduced to legal action because they don't have popular political support and they can't sway the executive and legislative branches the way they once could."
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.