The Public Expression of Religion Act singles out Establishment Clause cases as an exception to the rule which currently allows successful litigants to recover their legal costs and awards. This means that citizens who prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees.
I don’t buy the argument that the threat of lawsuits stifles permissible freedom of religion. If that were the case, then the bill would apply to all church/state cases; however, it doesn't. If enacted, the PERA would allow those who sue in favor of mixing religion and government to receive fees and costs.
Why should groups who sue to get religion into government not have this bill expanded to include their side as well? Obviously this legislation unfairly tips the balances against one side in court proceedings without regard to the merit of their claims.
Sounds pretty stupid to me.
I first saw mention of this bill in today's story here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...6092901055.html
Googling HR 2679 brought me to your blog entry.
This bill makes the First Amendment's Establishment Clause "special" in that it gets less protection than other constitutional and civil rights. In passing this bill, Congress is effectively trying to change the Constitution. If this were passed into law, I think the first court challenge would quickly rule it unconstitutional, as would all appeals.
Commenting by HaloScan
