Supreme Court won't test constitutionality of Ten Commandments monument on statehouse grounds

[Dedicated Dad]

Supreme Court won't test constitutionality of Ten Commandments monument on statehouse grounds

 

ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer Monday, February 25, 2002

Breaking News Sections

 

(02-25) 08:05 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

 

The Supreme Court refused Monday to be drawn into the explosive church-state debate over whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on government grounds.

 

The court did not comment in refusing to hear an appeal from Indiana Gov. Frank O'Bannon, who wanted to erect a 7-foot stone monument on the statehouse grounds in Indianapolis. O'Bannon said the Ten Commandments represent tenets of American law as much as religious teachings, and he asked the court to overturn rulings that prevented the monument from going up.

 

The court's action leaves in place a hodgepodge of conflicting court rulings across the country that allow the Ten Commandments' display in some instances but not in others.

 

It was the second time in less than a year that the court had sidestepped the Ten Commandments issue.

 

The Ten Commandments contain both religious and secular directives, including the familiar proscriptions on stealing, killing and adultery. The Bible says God gave the list to Moses.

 

The Constitution bars any state "establishment" of religion. That means the government cannot promote religion in general, or favor one faith over another. The Constitution also protects the freedom to worship.

 

Last May, the court divided bitterly over whether to hear another case testing whether a different Ten Commandments monument could be displayed outside a civic building. The court opted not to hear the case, but the three most conservative justices took the rare step of announcing that they would have agreed to hear it.

 

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas then did something even more unusual. They staked a position on a case that was not even pending, by saying they found nothing wrong with the monument's display.

 

The monument "simply reflects the Ten Commandments' role in the development of our legal system," Rehnquist wrote for the three.

 

The monument then at issue had a secular as well as a religious purpose, Rehnquist wrote. By displaying the monument outside the building housing local courts and prosecutors, city leaders in Elkhart, Ind., sought to reflect the cultural, historical and legal significance of the commandments, Rehnquist wrote.

 

"Indeed, a carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, surrounded by representations of other historical legal figures, adorns the frieze on the south wall of our courtroom," he added. The carving "signals respect not for great proselytizers but for great lawgivers."

 

Justice John Paul Stevens, on the opposite ideological end of the court, laid his own cards on the table with a scolding reply. The words "I am the Lord thy God," in the first line of the monument's inscription are "rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference," Stevens wrote then.

 

It takes the votes of at least four of the nine justices to agree to hear a case. Rehnquist's dissent had the effect of revealing the ordinarily secret vote -- 6-3 against hearing the earlier case.

 

In the current case, lawyers for Indiana echoed Rehnquist's dissent in arguing that the proposed statehouse monument is meant to memorialize the role the commandments have played in the American legal system.

 

The state posed a broad question for the court that could have set the court up for a ruling on all government display of the commandments -- whether as an outdoor monument or inside buildings such as courthouses.

 

O'Bannon wanted the donated monument to replace one that was defaced by a vandal. The Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued, and lower federal courts blocked the installation on grounds that it promoted a religious purpose.

 

"To deem the Ten Commandments inappropriate for a government historical display simply because it has both religious and historical import is to insist on inaccurate and incomplete public displays of history," the state appeal said.

 

The original, vandalized Ten Commandments monument was one of scores donated nationwide by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles in the 1950s. Many of the recent court fights over the commandments have concerned these monuments.

 

The Supreme Court also declined a 1996 invitation to hear a case involving an Eagles monument near the Colorado state Capitol, meaning that monument could stay.

 

Federal appeals courts have reached opposite conclusions about whether the monuments are constitutional.

 

The case is O'Bannon v. Indiana Civil Liberties Union, 01-966.

 

 

[Dedicated Dad]

Its a sad day for America, our right to freedom of speech has just been ignored by our SCOTUS. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Public property use cannot prohibit free speech, period. Signs, monuments and symbols are free speech and protected under the freedom of speech clause. Religious speech cannot be restricted from public property, as it would violate the free exercise clause. Someone please explain how this is establishment of religion, what would be the name of the States religion if the Ten Commandments were posted?

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not sure how important this is, but was the monument to be publicly or privately financed?

[NJCubScouter]

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

I am not sure how important this is, but was the monument to be publicly or privately financed?

 

It is difficult to know how important that fact would be. As the article suggests, the state of the law on this subject is so fragmented that it is difficult to predict what the ruling would be on any set of facts. It would literally depend on which state supreme court or federal appeals court is the last one to hear the case, because 6 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are enough to decide that the case will not be heard at the highest level. In the semi-long-run, the outcome of this issue may depend on when Rehnquist on one hand, and O'Connor and Stevens on the other, decide to retire, who is president at the time, and who that president appoints to replace them.

 

If I had to guess, it would be that who pays for the statue should not effect the constitutionality of its installation on government property. Even if the statue itself is privately funded, the government would still be using part of its land for this arguably religious purpose. It may only be a few square feet, but I don't think that would matter. If its unconstitutional, the amount of area occupied by the offending structure should not make the difference.

[Dedicated Dad]

Good question OGE, the monument was originally donated by a private organization and then removed because of vandalization in 1991. I would see replacement as maintenance to the original monument. If monuments are donated and then approved by the local legislature I would think its the states/city responsibility to maintain it.

 

the government would still be using part of its land for this arguably religious purpose. NC, how is this an establishment, that is my question. What religion is it, the religion of the Ten Commandants? Is the monument in effect the Church? Does this monument meet the standards used to recognize an organized religion?

 

[OldGreyEagle]

My question about financing was because I wouldnt think if it was state funded it would be constitutional. I wouldnt want a monument espousing the tenets of the Koran paid for with my tax dollars and I am not sure a Muslim would want to pay for the Ten Commandments with theirs.

 

But if privately funded I see no problem.

 

As an aside, living in Eastern Pennsylvania as I do, the troop has been to the Gettysburg battlefield quite a few times. Many of the monuments there dedicated to the men and various units who fought there make multiple references to God and the almighty. Since these are on National Park Land, does these mean they are in violation of separation of church and state? ( I sure hope not)

 

The monuments were paid for by private organizaitons, so they should stand and so should a privately funded 10 commandments memorial.

[sctmom]

"What religion is it, the religion of the Ten Commandants? "

 

It is the religions of Judiasm and Christianity, as others do not subscribe to the Old Testament as "law". IMHO, one must also look at the overall picture -- is there a religion wanting to post a similiar type of important creed, that is being denied the right to put it on a monument. For example, if a Native American tribe in the area may want a monument with it's creed inscribed on it. Can they do that at the same location?

I don't know the law, just my opinion.

 

[Rooster7]

The comparison is not fair. The Ten Commandments is the basis for U.S. law. It has historical significance as it relates to U.S. law. Or, as one of our Supreme Court justices noted - "The monument simply reflects the Ten Commandments role in the development of our legal system," (Rehnquist)

 

Furthermore, I feel it is not right for the government (federal or state) to disassociate itself with a precept (or 10 precepts in this case) just because a religious faith endorses the same values. By that standard, we should abolish all laws. The posting of the Ten Commandments is simply recognition of this country's founding principles. Given the choice, some people would purge all references to Christianity from our country's history. Some schools have already managed to do so.

 

[Dedicated Dad]

It is the religions of Judaism and Christianity Thanks mom for pointing out my incomplete thought. My point was that religious ideology does not make a religion or establish such. The name of the religion is not the Ten Commandment religion and the monument is not its place of worship. Nor is In God We Trust an establishment of religion and the coin its manual. is there a religion wanting to post a similar type of important creed, that is being denied the right to put it on a monument. That is irrelevant because its up to the local legislature to make the decision of what it wants on its public grounds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[slontwovvy]

Big Bump to R7 and DD on this one.

 

Thou shalt not kill.....seem to remember a law on the books concerning murder.

 

Thou shalt not steal....seem to remember codes on robbery and theft.

 

Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor....yep, those laws about perjury are still around too, as our past President can point out.

[OldGreyEagle]

I will have to let our lawyer friends answer this, but didnt the Hammurabi Code form the basis for suing people for damages?

 

[Dedicated Dad]

Hammurabi Code??? Im not familiar with this OGE, do you have a link? What is the basis for suit?

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Try this Dad, its the best one I found

 

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hammenu.htm

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

...

"Its a sad day for America, our right to freedom of speech has just been ignored by our SCOTUS."

...

"Public property use cannot prohibit free speech, period."

 

The case wasn't about a public forum where anyone could put up signs; if it was, atheists would be able to erect a sign that says "gods are myths".

 

This was about the government deciding to put up a sign that starts with "thou shalt have no other gods before me". The government has no business telling its citizens which gods to believe in, if any.

 

Given your attitude, the local government would have to power to promote whatever religions they felt like promoting, which is why ACLU lawsuits like this are needed in the first place.

 

Not that this topic has much of ANYTHING to do with scouting issues.

[OldGreyEagle]

Welcome back Merl,

 

My favorite Rocky and Bullwinkle was when Bullwinkle would put on a hat and be the smartest man in the world. It was called the Kerwood Derby and it made him president of WHATTSAMATTA U.

 

Then there was the Story of the lost bath tub toy made from precious gems, I believe that was the ruby yacht of omar kayam.

 

Merl, your a scream!!!

 

(and since when did you care about scouting issues?)(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)