- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,731
HOUSE PASSES BILL TO MUZZLE FIRST AMENDMENT LITIGATION
The House of Representatives approved a controversial measure on
Tuesday to penalize litigation in First Amendment establishment clause
by denying attorney fees, even if the government was found to be at
fault. The measure, HR 2679, was introduced as the "Public Expression
of Religion Act" and sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler,(R-Ind). The
vote was 242-173. American Atheists and other separationist
organizations have opposed the legislation warning that it would place
a chilling effect on both advocacy groups and private citizens seeking
to check rampant government promotion of religious faith.
During debate earlier in the day, Hostettler and other supporters of
the bill hammered away and what they described as "extortionist"
fees awarded to attorneys engaged in litigation over establishment
clause issues.
"The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors was told by the ACLU that
if they did not remove the tiny cross in the county seal, the county
would be sued by the ACLU, the ACLU would probably win, and the
country would not only have to pay its attorneys' fees in the lawsuit,
it would have to pay the ACLU's as well," Hostettler declared. He
added that the costs could run as high as $1 million in legal
compensation, and that "ACLU did this without darkening the doorstep
of a federal courthouse, and that needs to be changed."
Other supporters of PERA stated that the bill had nothing to do with
limiting citizens' access to the legal system, and instead merely
"closed the door to the public treasury." Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) said
that passage of HR 2679 "would be a win for those of us that
understand our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not
freedom from religion."
Opponents of the measure such as Rep. Jerold Nadler of New York
charged that those backing PERA were "misrepresenting" the real issues
involved, and reminded lawmakers that if passed, the bill would make
establishment clause cases the only area of constitutional law where
legal fees were restricted.
The vote tally was pretty much along partisan lines, with 218
Republicans and 26 Democrats voting for the measure. Only 6 GOP
members broke with party leadership to oppose the bill.
PERA now moves to the U.S. Senate where it is expected to face
stiffer opposition. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. has introduced
companion legislation there. The bill is S.3696.
For further information:
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-09-sep-2006.html
(American Atheist Action Alert on PERA)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/pera2.htm
("House set to debate, vote on PERA," 9/24/06)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/cong15.htm
("Catering to James Dobson? Background on PERA, "American Values
Agenda," 7/10/06)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/pera1.htm
("Legion announces support for measure to penalize First Amendment
litigation," 3/10/06)
The House of Representatives approved a controversial measure on
Tuesday to penalize litigation in First Amendment establishment clause
by denying attorney fees, even if the government was found to be at
fault. The measure, HR 2679, was introduced as the "Public Expression
of Religion Act" and sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler,(R-Ind). The
vote was 242-173. American Atheists and other separationist
organizations have opposed the legislation warning that it would place
a chilling effect on both advocacy groups and private citizens seeking
to check rampant government promotion of religious faith.
During debate earlier in the day, Hostettler and other supporters of
the bill hammered away and what they described as "extortionist"
fees awarded to attorneys engaged in litigation over establishment
clause issues.
"The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors was told by the ACLU that
if they did not remove the tiny cross in the county seal, the county
would be sued by the ACLU, the ACLU would probably win, and the
country would not only have to pay its attorneys' fees in the lawsuit,
it would have to pay the ACLU's as well," Hostettler declared. He
added that the costs could run as high as $1 million in legal
compensation, and that "ACLU did this without darkening the doorstep
of a federal courthouse, and that needs to be changed."
Other supporters of PERA stated that the bill had nothing to do with
limiting citizens' access to the legal system, and instead merely
"closed the door to the public treasury." Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) said
that passage of HR 2679 "would be a win for those of us that
understand our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not
freedom from religion."
Opponents of the measure such as Rep. Jerold Nadler of New York
charged that those backing PERA were "misrepresenting" the real issues
involved, and reminded lawmakers that if passed, the bill would make
establishment clause cases the only area of constitutional law where
legal fees were restricted.
The vote tally was pretty much along partisan lines, with 218
Republicans and 26 Democrats voting for the measure. Only 6 GOP
members broke with party leadership to oppose the bill.
PERA now moves to the U.S. Senate where it is expected to face
stiffer opposition. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. has introduced
companion legislation there. The bill is S.3696.
For further information:
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-09-sep-2006.html
(American Atheist Action Alert on PERA)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/pera2.htm
("House set to debate, vote on PERA," 9/24/06)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/cong15.htm
("Catering to James Dobson? Background on PERA, "American Values
Agenda," 7/10/06)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/pera1.htm
("Legion announces support for measure to penalize First Amendment
litigation," 3/10/06)
