Judge Says No to “I Believe” License Plates; SC Group Says it Will Issue a Version
Alternative content
Group to issue I Believe plate
A private group says it will get the DMV to issue an
Published: November 11, 2009
Updated: November 11, 2009
Updated November 11 5:51 p.m.
One of the people who sued to stop the state from issuing the “I Believe” Christian license plate says he has no problem with a private group going through the process to get the DMV to make the plates.
A federal judged on Tuesday ruled that the license plates were unconstitutional because they were created by the state legislature, which meant the state was endorsing one religion. “I’m not a constitutional lawyer and you don’t have to be to recognize that this was blatantly unconstitutional,“ says the Rev. Dr. Neal Jones, minister of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Columbia and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
But he says of the Palmetto Family Council’s plan to go through the normal process already in place to get a new specialty license plate, which would look exactly like the one ruled unconstitutional, is perfectly fine because it’s being done by a private group. “And that way, the government is not giving its seal of endorsement to any religion, which is the way it should be. As a minister and as a religious person, I don’t want the government meddling in my religion,“ he says.
Dr. Oran Smith, president of the Palmetto Family Council, already has on his desk the DMV application for a new specialty license plate. He says when lawmakers passed the “I Believe” plate law last year, the council thought it would probably be ruled unconstitutional so it registered the name “I Believe” as a chartered organization. “Our intention at this point, barring any problems that we see, is to move forward with a plate for the organization ‘I Believe’ that features a Christian cross and a stained glass window, or some similar design,“ he says.
He says the group will have no problem getting the required 400 pre-orders or $4,000 deposit required by the DMV.
Attorney General Henry McMaster says it’s not his decision whether to appeal the federal judge’s ruling because he was not a party in the lawsuit. The DMV was sued because it issues license plates and the Department of Corrections was sued because it makes the plates. The suit was filed by Rev. Jones, retired Methodist minister Rev. Thomas Summers of Columbia, Rabbi Sanford Marcus of Columbia, Rev. Robert Knight of Charleston, the Hindu American Foundation and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
McMaster says, “This license plate does not hurt anybody. There are over a hundred other types of specialty plates and nobody is made to have one.“
He says activist federal judges have been moving the country further to the left, trying to remove religion completely from the public square.
But Rev. Jones says, “It’s funny, some people think that those of us who brought the lawsuit are somehow anti-Christian or anti-religious. We’re all ministers, so that’s obviously not the case. We all stand for the Constitution because we stand for separation of church and state. And we have learned through history the hard way that, when you mix politics and religion, both democratic government and religion suffer.“
Updated November 10 4:35 p.m.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Hours after a federal judge said South
Carolina can’t issue an “I Believe” license tag, a private group
says it will use state law to issue its own version of the plate.
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie said Tuesday that the
state-issued tag with a cross and stained glass window design was
unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment ban on
establishment of religion by government.
But later Tuesday, the Palmetto Family Council said it was ready
to use a state law that lets private groups issue tags on their
own. Council President Oran Smith said Tuesday was the first day of
putting in place a different plan to get “I Believe” tags on the
road.
Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer had pushed the tag and said he hopes the
Currie’s decision is appealed.
Posted November 10, 12:18 p.m.A federal judge says South Carolina can’t issue license tags that show the image of a cross in front of a stained glass window along with the phrase “I Believe.“
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie said in her ruling Tuesday that the license plates violate the separation of church and state.
The fight over the “I Believe” license plates started shortly after Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer helped push the legislation through in 2008.
Groups including Americans United for Separation of Church and State and American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee challenged the state’s ability to put a religious message on a state license tag.
Currie says the case is a textbook example of the need to observe limits on the government promotion of religion.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Well, it appears that I have won. Hortus, if you happen to check out this blog one more time, let me say this one more thing. You keep saying that I have no proof. And I guess you kinda stumped me there, because I wansn’t sure how to address that. I mean, you say the tags are illegal because they are uncontitutional. I say no they are not, because the constitiution says, “there can be no law.“ You say, “oh yeah? Prove it.“
I banged my head against the wall on that one. Just how do you prove the noexistence of something? Well, here’s the best I can do.
IT’S ALL NOT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE.
Correctiion, it takes 2 3rds of congress to ammend the constitution. Sorry for the typo.
Look folks, of all the arguments against the tags, against religious activity on school or gov property including all signs and symbols and monuments, look for the wording in the First ammendments that supports these arguments and I will shut up.
Hortus, I read the article and I apprciate the info, but to me it only validates my argument because the arguments are all about the wrong thing.
First of all, it dosen’t take a scholar to understand simple English. No state run religion is being established by these license plates. If they were the only plates available, that would be a problem for obvious reasons. The idea of sponsership or endorsment dose not come into the argument because that is not a part of the language of the ammendment and only adds to the document which requires the writing of law. Can’t do that. The court simply dose not have that power. It takes 1 3rd of congress to ammend the constitution. So if you want to say the state cannot endorse by association or take part in any way, you’re gonna have to get congress to do it.
Again, what if someone wants a wiccan tag? Again, the document simply dose not say or imply in any way that if you do for one you atuomatically have to do for another.
It’s not really about the tag for me. I don’t have one and probably wont get one. It’s about truth. If you read the document and don’t add to it or take away from it, just simply read what it says you find no reason why they can’t have their tag. It’s a simple matter of personal preference, not something required by law. If Bauer had taken the common sense approach and not tried to be so smart, he would have had a better chance of winning his argument.
Interesting. Very interesting.
DocHolliday, it certainly is nice to have a constitutional and legal scholar available to enlighten those of us that are not! Unfortunately for you there are reams of articles that support my assertions and have yet to produce a single proof of your false assertions.
Try this out for an explanation!
I know it is from the plaintiffs but, it still elucidates the motivation of both sides. And contrary to what is usually seen from the theocrats this post gives BOTHS sides comments.
http://blog.au.org/2009/11/11/plate-histrionics-south-carolinas-bauer-rails-against-christian-cartag-decision/
Horselover, the straying away from the establishment clause and the prohibition clause has only led to the opinion clause. The courts should always rule according to written law and leave their opinions out of it.
sliverwings, don’t try to tell me what people think. Your statement about give em an inch is very interesting.
Someone driving down the street can see a nativity scene and raise enough stink over it to have it removed because somehow they find it offensive, even though most of the people like it and want to keep it. Yet several years ago in NY someone put a crucifix upside down in a jar of urine in a storefront window on a busy street and it was ruled art and freedom of expression. In one school district and I don’t remember where it was but they attempted to teach creation along with evolution just so the students could see both sides and the courts made them stop. Yet in another school district, in Kentucky I think they forced elementary students to read a book about two gay penguins to teach them about the altenate life style and about tolerance even though ninety percent of the parents found the reading offensive and expressed their opposition to it. So much for democracy. Give an inch…
Well said Horselover, the framers of the constitution invited local clergy to come in and pray over their preceedings while acutally writing this sacred document. One of the first acts of this congress was to print Bibles to be used in public schools as text books. Almost all of the them were church members and some were even ministers. They founded Christian Schools and it was an original member of congress who established Sunday School. The idea was never to force religion on anyone. The church would not be run by the state nor would the state be run by the church. It was all about freedom. But don’t try to tell me that it’s unconstitutional for the state to issue a tag that displays a religious symbol. That just wont wash.
“I believe” should not be on any state’s tag. I’ts not that I don’t believe. Its an egotistical pridefull, cras advertizement that does’nt make the onwer of it particularly religious, better or even correct like they seem to think they are.
Get a bumper sticker or a decal and put it on your vehicle to go with the others.
Give em an inch and next it will be a foot and then they’ll come for you next.
Perhaps this will provide a clearer understanding.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion”, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press. In the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. However, it was not until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments.
pwilliams, yes the ACLJ site is a great source for info and thanks for the encouragement.
walkerscranger, the problem is that many of the people of our country have been so brainwashed by the media and Hollywood that it’s hard not to speak out when we see things like this. PennST was hammered when students desighned a shirt that had what resempled a cross and the first thing that was said was “Seperation of church and state!“ Well, I’m sorry, but I don’t care what the Supreme Court says, those words don’t exist in our constitution and it’s time we the people understood this and it’s time our public school systems started teaching students what the constitution SAYS and not what some anti American, anti God left wing extremist thinks!
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement