Posts Tagged ‘ first amendment’

Rebuttal to Hamilton and No Possible Secular Purpose to Stupak

Friday, November 20th, 2009

Professor and legal commentator Marci Hamilton posted an article on why she believes1 the Stupak amendment to the recently-passed health care bill in the House of Representatives is unconstitutional. Her theory is, in part, that the amendment violates the Establishment Clause. The basis for this claim, according to Hamilton, is that the “anti-abortion movement is plainly religious in motivation, and its lobbyists and spokespersons represent religious groups, as is illustrated by the fact that the most visible lobbyists in the Stupak Amendment’s favor have been the Catholic Bishops.” The Establishment Clause does not care whether this or that movement is religious.

We care about whether the legislation is religious. This religious-movement bit is a red herring.
(more…)

The Establishment Clause

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

Freedom From Religion

The Establishment Clause seems to be one of the least-understood parts of the US Constitution. Though whether that misunderstanding is borne out of true confusion or willful ignorance—or in some extreme cases, the practice of historical revisionism1—is debatable.

The First Amendment contains several important ideas, that we call clauses. In full, the First Amendment reads:

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.

The Establishment Clause is broken out as the part that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” To understand what this means, we have different methods of interpretation. Without going into too much detail on statutory construction, I would like to argue one of the most compelling points to consider in interpretation is that we “must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992).
(more…)