A sign of theocracy in the US? Public Expression of Religion Act...

[Finder]

H.R.2679
Title: 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.
Sponsor: Rep Hostettler, John N. (introduced 5/26/2005) Cosponsors (62)
Latest Major Action: 9/7/2006 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
5/26/2005--Introduced.

Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 - Amends the Revised Statutes of the United States to limit the remedy to injunctive relief and deny attorneys' fees in a civil action against a state or local official for deprivation of rights where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion.

[trotsky]

1. You bet your crucifix.

Seems to say that if you choose to sue, that even if you win, you won't receive much, and you'll have to pay your own lawyers.

A nice sidestep around the Constitution.

[BattyDem]

2. Wait a minute ...

How they can possibly have a law that says there is no remedy if your Constitutional rights are violated? It would make the Constitution useless (yes, I know that's the point). If all Congress has to do is pass laws that say, "Yes, your rights were violated - but too bad for you", then there's no point in even having a Constitution.

The law itself is unconstitutional!

[Finder]

3. I would think so too, but it made it through to Congress it seems...

It passed the Judicial Committee on Sept. 7th. Not sure when the House plans to vote on it though.

[trotsky]

4. FYI, according to some even on DU...

we have nothing to fear from the radical right. They don't have any "real" power. :eyes:

[Realityhack]

5. Not sure.

its 1000% a bad idea.

but I am not sure about constitutionality. It would have a chilling effect so it may be. But it would leave a smaller penalty in place so it would be questionable.

IMO it should be unconstitutional due to its chilling effect but I am no constitutional scholar.

[moobu2]

6. It’s meant to hurt the ACLU

at least that’s what I read somewhere recently.

The ACLU sues to protect us over these state/religious issues and most of the time the only way they get paid for their work is to recover attorney fee’s as part of the judgment. This bill would prevent them from recovering money for their work.