Constitutional Amendment: Bill would limit courts on three fronts

defending the First Amendment against the Christian right ...

... because if Jews don't speak out, they'll think we don't mind

Web JewsOnFirst

Optional Member Code

Please email us
(click here)
catcher@JewsOnFirst.org

And "bookmark" us at
JewsOnFirst.org

Jews on First
P.O. Box 2283
Rockville MD 20847

310-910-9153

Constitutional Amendment: Bill would limit courts on three fronts

Commandments: 'Historic display' would be allowed

By John Stamper, Lexington Herald-Leader, (Lexington, Kentucky), March 2, 2006

FRANKFORT - Republican Senate leaders pushed toward passage yesterday a constitutional amendment that would let the public vote on a trio of controversial issues: posting the Ten Commandments, gay-rights ordinances and curtailing so-called activist judges.

If approved by the General Assembly and passed by voters, the amendment would block judges from:

prohibiting displays of the Ten Commandments in a historical context on public property;
allowing local governments to enact or enforce fairness ordinances without the expressed permission of the legislature;
demanding that legislators increase taxes.

"We see the legislative branch being trampled on by the judicial branch," said Sen. Charlie Borders, R-Grayson, who co-sponsored the measure with Elizabeth Tori, a Republican from Radcliff.

Introduced on Monday, the bill was approved by the Senate State and Local Government Committee at a noon meeting yesterday, then made its way onto the agenda of the full Senate less than two hours later.

After Senate Democrats protested heavily, Republican Senate President David Williams of Burkesville agreed to postpone a vote on the measure until today, giving Democrats a chance to research the ramifications of the seven-part amendment.

'Unconscionable attack'
The proposed amendment would block courts from allowing local governments to protect the civil rights of individuals based on sexual orientation -- unless the General Assembly specifically authorizes such a provision.

Opponents immediately attacked the bill as a political move designed to lure conservative voters to the polls by attacking minorities.

"The Republican Caucus is going to run their re-election campaigns on the backs of gay people, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves," said Jimmy LaSalvia, president of the Kentucky Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group.

In a statement, the Kentucky Fairness Alliance called the proposal "an unconscionable attack on religious, sexual and gender minorities, and low-income schoolchildren who cannot vote."

If approved, Williams said, the changes would clear the way for legal challenges to existing fairness ordinances in Lexington, Louisville and Covington. He said the proposal was not politically motivated.

Gerald Smith, Mayor Teresa Isaac's chief of staff, said the city is evaluating the proposal. He offered no other response.

The Kentucky League of Cities plans to oppose the proposal because it encroaches on local control, said executive director and CEO Sylvia Lovely.

"It seems to go right to the heart of what we stand for. We do not want to see any erosion of local authority," Lovely said.

Proposal embraced
The Family Foundation, a Lexington-based conservative group, embraced the proposal, calling it a "sunshine law for left-wing social activist groups like the ACLU."

"This amendment is basically a defense of the Constitution against activist judges who in recent years have turned our courts into centers for left-wing social activism and playgrounds for political correctness," said Martin Cothran, the group's senior policy analyst.

In a brief committee hearing, Sen. Julian Carroll, D-Frankfort, questioned the bill's sponsors about its possible implications, including whether it might block lawsuits seeking to declare unconstitutional the state's system of funding schools.

The state Supreme Court did just that in a landmark 1990 decision, spurring the Kentucky Education Reform Act. Since then, similar lawsuits have been filed in several other states, and new suits on the issue are pending in Kentucky.

Impact on KERA?
Williams said the measure would not have blocked KERA, since that ruling declared the state's education system unequal. However, it would prevent the court from finding that funding for education or other services, such as the state retirement system, was inadequate.

Only voters should be able to decide if the actions of legislators are adequate, Tori said. If the General Assembly doesn't do its job, "legislators will suffer at the polls, and that's the way it should be," she said.

Senate Minority Leader Ed Worley, D-Richmond, said it was "disrespectful" of Williams to push the complex measure so quickly. Worley was one of two Democrats who voted for the measure in committee. Two others abstained, while six Republicans voted in favor.

Despite the 24-hour reprieve, Williams predicted the measure would pass today with 30 or more votes in the 38-member chamber. It needs 23 votes in order to advance to the House of Representatives.

A 'wedge' issue?
The House Democratic Floor Leader, Rep. Rocky Adkins of Sandy Hook, said he hadn't read the bill, but was concerned about any major legislation that could divide lawmakers.

"We would hope the wedge issues would not become a factor during this session," he said.

He noted that House Democrats helped draft and pass a bill that would allow the posting of the Ten Commandments with other historic documents, which passed the Senate yesterday.

He said Democrats can display that measure as proof that they are just as concerned about religion as Republicans. "Not only does it give everybody political cover, I think we also passed a responsible bill that follows the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling," he said.

If the proposed amendment is approved by both chambers, it still isn't likely to reach the ballot, said Democratic Sen. Ernesto Scorsone of Lexington, the legislator's only openly gay member.

Scorsone predicted the amendment wouldn't survive a legal challenge, since constitutional amendments can address only one issue.

He also predicted the measure would run afoul of due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

"From a legal standpoint, it's a farce," he said. "It could never be implemented."

Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.