A constitutional amendment to establish a right that already exists

April 12, 2006

Usually, advocates of a certain policy push for a [tag]constitutional amendment[/tag] when they disagree with existing law and want to establish a right that does not already exist. Some conservatives in [tag]Missouri[/tag] seem to have things backwards.

The Missouri House of Representatives has voted to place on November’s ballot a proposed constitutional [tag]amendment[/tag] that would protect students’ right to [tag]pray[/tag] in public [tag]schools[/tag], The Associated Press reported.

While the language in the proposed amendment would prohibit the establishment of an official religion as well as state-composed or -coerced prayer, it gives students the right to freely express their religious beliefs without interference, as long as “expression is private and voluntary and in a manner that is not disruptive nor in violation of other policies, rules or standards.”

In other words, the proposed amendment to the state constitution would change…nothing. Students in public schools already have these rights. In fact, students can pray voluntarily in class, say grace before meals, read religious texts during their free time, form after-school Bible clubs, wear religious clothing, and invite other students to worship services. All of this is already legal.

So, why is the amendment necessary?

Rod Jetton, speaker of the House, said the law is necessary to educate the public about students’ rights.

Missouri is going to change its constitution to protect a right that already exists to “educate the public”? Wouldn’t it be easier and less expensive to just publish a brochure or something?

The measure has already passed the state House. If it’s approved by the state Senate, it will be on the ballot in November.

April 12, 2006 at 10:55 am

This punches an enormous hole in my argument that laws aren’t made unless there’s a reason to make them. I use that argument in talking about flag burning, etc. I.e., things that aren’t remotely close to being sweeping “social dangers” but that people seem interested in outlawing anyway. We might as well talk about outlawing suicide by camel stampede.

But apparently, I was wrong. If it can be conceived of, it must be legislated. The Republican Party: abandoning its commitment to smaller government since 1994.

There is a certain hierarchy of ‘Rights’:

Rights which you exercise in private, in your own mind or home. Usually the holding of beliefs,

Liberties which you exercise in public. Generally require the tolerance of other people. Liberties that are granted in America include most speech (not to the extent of starting riots or stampedes), religious expression and so on. Liberties usually excluded in in America include public nudity and so on.

Priviledges which involve the use of public accomidations. Access to education, roads, resturants, bars and so on. Most are not restricted, but do have detailed rules of conduct.

The ‘right’ they want to grant here is clearly a liberty. As such, it requires careful definition, because all liberties are some form of imposition on other people. Thus, it is no surprise that they would want a constitutional amendment protecting it.

Just remember that all intolerant religious extremists seek the ‘liberty’ to oppress people of other or no religious faiths. Thus the recent conduct at the Air Force Academy.

Obvious trap. The Republican hysteria brigades have the mailings and TV ads primed, all they need is the name of Democratic State Senators who vote against.

In the toolbox of the modern-day ‘party of ideas,’ this one comes out about as often as a phillips-head screwdriver.

“it will be on the ballot in November”

I suspect that more such faith-based nonsense will be coming soon to bring out the church vote. What else does Rove have left in his bag of tricks besides nuclear war?

I think kali has it right. This sounds like something Rovian meant to get the fundie base to the polls. Look for ads that make it seem like people don’t already have this right or that “someone” (godless democrats) are looking to take it away. Pitiful…but effective. I’d look for this kind of nonsense to be duplicated in other states.

This is something every Democrat in MO should get behind. Since it is basically pointless and useless this is an opportunity for the Democrats to stand up and vote for it. Then they tell everyone in the world they supported it. Take the wind out of the Fundies sails. Remember, Rovian (Republican) campaign tactics like this only work if there is an enemy (one that lurks is preferable but any enemy will do in a pinch).

As someone who live in Mo. (my apologies to the rest of the country for the stupidity of the people here), I can tell you that many people don’t even know about this thing yet.

Once they do, I can damn near guarantee that about 85% of the people will think it’s a beautiful idea, not realizing how amazingly pointless it is.

Oh, and the wingnuts in this state don’t need Rove’s help — they’re all plenty batshit crazy already.

Sorry Carpetbagger, but in a way, they’re right. They’ve been repeating the myth that liberals have denied them the right to pray privately for so long that they now need this symbolic right re-established to preserve what they abolished rhetorically.

Unholy Moses is right. Missouri is plenty batshit crazy. We were batshit crazy before Karl Rove and we’ll be batshit crazy long after Rove.

This follows on the heels of a resolution “recognizing” Christianity, the move to ban contraceptives from county health clinics, and any number of bills that would ban or limit abortion.

The timing of this amendment and it’s placement on the ballot is really interesting. Missouri voters may have to approve another amendment in November that would legalize, define and protect stem cell research in the state. If anything, this is a way to fire up the fundamentalist wingnut voters. It also doesn’t hurt that Sen. Jim Talent is facing a serious challege from State Auditor Claire McCaskill.

It also doesn’t hurt that this diverts attention away from an unpopular Republican governor and an unpopular Republican-led State Legislature. Gov. Matt Blunt has lost favor with the fundies for expressing support for stem cell research, and Rod Jetton’s in trouble with creationists because he’s sponsored a bill recognizing an official state dinosaur.

This site gives you a sense of how completely nuts (but entertaining) Missouri politics are:

http://www.firedupmissouri.com/

I agree – this is part of their campaign to paint themselves as oppressed by the godless liberal scientists (with their carbon dating and whatnot) and leverage that to encourage outraged fundies to flock to the polls.

Yep. Don’t forget that the ERA was an ‘unnecessary’ amendment, too. The reality of discrimination, despite the theoretical but insufficiently explicit equal rights for the sexes made the fight necessary.

Let me be more clear: Running ERA up the flag pole to see who *didn’t* salute was useful for drawing the battle lines.

We don’t need frivolous amendments to our constitutions, but neither do we need to pick a fight where we don’t have disagreement. This is a gift. Let’s all stand in line to have our pictures taken signing on to this thing.

I’m thinking that this “amendment” might be the envisioned cornerstone for another try at Intelligent Design.

First, a Law establishes a right that was never lost, but that Law now exists—specifically—within the State Constitution.

Second, a curriculum that fails to support “the social development” of students, on the basis of their religious beliefs, is challenged—and removed—being replaced with something more in line with the “elective choices of students.”

Third, various student groups—and their parents’ attorneys, of course—begin raising legal objections to their “elective” not being offered during convenient time-frames—thus necessitating multiple sections of the “course.”

(Notice now that it’s an actual “course,” and not just an after-school “club…”).

Fourth, the State department of Education established the core curricular guidelines for the program—lesson-plan ceritification, textbook requirements, accredited support resources for the coursework.

And fifth, the State reorganizes the number of credits required in the pedagogical discipline of Sociology. Schools must offer a certain quantity of coursework, from which the students may choose enough to meet the graduation requirement—but one or two of the alternatives to a “covert” ID program are offered at “inconvenient” times. Or perhaps an alternative to ID isn’t offered during the Summer months. Or how about getting to that senior year of high school, needing two Sociology courses to graduate—and ID is one of the only two offered at the “senior” level?

This has “ID” written all over it….

Comments are closed.