Oh my: Federal judge finds Christian license plates unconstitutional
posted at 7:20 pm on November 10, 2009 by Allahpundit
Her ruling singled out [Lt. Gov. Andre] Bauer after he pushed a tag Christian advocates sought in Florida, but legislators there did not approve.
Bauer wanted to accomplish in South Carolina what had been unsuccessful in Florida, Currie wrote: To “gain legislative approval of a specialty plate promoting the majority religion: Christianity. Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same. The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.”
Bauer said he wasn’t surprised by the ruling and would like to see it appealed.
“I don’t expect anything different from a liberal judge who was appointed by Bill Clinton,” Bauer said. “If she wants to single me out, so be it.”
Just for good measure, the judge ordered the state to cover the legal expenses of groups like Americans United who filed suit to stop the plates. And why not? Did anyone expect these things to pass constitutional muster? The outcome’s been a fait accompli since my first post on the subject more than a year ago. Waste a court’s time, pay the other party’s fee. That’s how it usually works in law. Or should.
But cheer up. Follow the link above and you’ll see that Plan B here involves a private group of Christians registering their organizational name as “I Believe” with the Secretary of State and then applying with the DMV to produce vanity plates with that slogan — and, er, a cross. Exit question: Does that solve the constitutional problem? Technically it’s now a private group, not the state, that’s responsible for the Christian symbolism, although of course the design would have to be approved by a state agency. And if it’s not okay, then what’s the difference between the private group’s plate and the religious symbols that appear on tombstones at Arlington?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Muslim plate: JSUSSUX:
Yeah, liberty in action!
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I fail to understand why this is even an issue. If they want it on the plate, why not?
AnninCA on November 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM
However it’s okay to use taxpayer money for the murder of unborn childern.
boomer on November 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I’m Christian and I can’t really defend these license plates. I like the idea of the private group doing it though. If environmental groups get their own plates, why not other groups?
BadgerHawk on November 10, 2009 at 7:24 PM
But Powerpoints about Jihad?
A O.K. !!!!!!!
seejanemom on November 10, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Oh, Allah, may God bless you.
publiuspen on November 10, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Totalitarian suppression of religious freedom is atheist Christmas to you, Allah?
Darth Executor on November 10, 2009 at 7:26 PM
I can. The government is not mandating a specific religion. They are simply allowing people to display their religous preference on their plates. No one is required to get one so how is it unconstitutional?
boomer on November 10, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Because if a state provides vanity license plates for different religions, next thing you know… SCIENTOLOGY IS THE STATE RELIGION! IT’S A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
Eh. I can’t worry myself up over it anymore.
Keljeck on November 10, 2009 at 7:26 PM
I don’t understand it either. So keeping Christian symbols off license plates (which I don’t suppose anyone was forced to use) is some huge victory?
ddrintn on November 10, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Silly boomer, double standards are the new black.
seejanemom on November 10, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Christ finds Federal Judge not in The Book of Life.
bill30097 on November 10, 2009 at 7:26 PM
That’s ridiculous. Just because there is separation of church and state doesn’t mean you have to be anti-religion.
This is a group that applied for a permit just like anyone could. Freedom from establishment doesn’t mean that you can’t say God’s name.
Whatever though, I’m sure it would have been OK if it had just said ‘Allahu Akbar’. We’d be talking about how scared we are of anti-Muslim backlash instead of banning it altogether.
ThackerAgency on November 10, 2009 at 7:27 PM
No Problem………..
Radical islamist muslim jihad plates are OK.
bannedbyhuffpo on November 10, 2009 at 7:27 PM
As long as the number is visible, who cares what the plate looks like? If you can’t defend it as a Christian, then defend it as a conservative who respects the constitution and doesn’t want unnecessary government intrusion into your life.
Darth Executor on November 10, 2009 at 7:27 PM
I have no doubt that Muslims or Jews could get any plate they wanted. Secondly, how can the federal government even step into this? The 1st Amendment specifically says Congress … not state governments.
darwin on November 10, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Because if you let people choose to put a cross on a license plate, before you know it, we will all be praying at the Church of the United States, and all private religious faiths will be outlawed! /sarc
Establishment clause jurisprudence is full of Olympic-quality mental gymnastics designed to conceal the fact that it’s an effort by small groups of people to purge faith from public life, rather than a mere effort to keep the government out of running churches (or endorsing specific churches, etc.)
Outlander on November 10, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Newsflash: Founding Fathers Unconstitutional
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?cat=HW
jp on November 10, 2009 at 7:28 PM
how is this unconstitutional? it doesn’t violate the establishment clause unless other religions were denied by the state. were they?
on the other hand, if they try to forbid the private group version of the plates, it seems to me that it most definitely infringes on free exercise…
homesickamerican on November 10, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Muslims consider Jesus a prophet. You’re far more likely to find an atheist plate that looks like that.
Darth Executor on November 10, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Secondary exit question: Does this help or hurt Andre’ Bauer’s chances in the primary to be South Carolina’s next governor?
I say it helps him. Unfortunately.
SouthernGent on November 10, 2009 at 7:28 PM
As I recall, the Missouri state capitol building contains many Christian references inside that have been there, so far as I know, since it was built. I wonder what this judge would have said about those? If the Constitution means what the writers intended it to mean, and such references were not unconstitutional 100 years ago, then they cannot be now, correct?
I know, no automobiles existed in 1776. Well, at least we have that!
kc8ukw on November 10, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Insanity.
Spirit of 1776 on November 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
This sh!t is getting ridiculous.
farright on November 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
JIHDSUX
seejanemom on November 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Why work so hard for so little? A Cross on my tag, sheeesh
Now if any other Group gets religious symbols on their Tags, I would have a problem. Does anyone know?
IowaWoman on November 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Not clear to me whether this also covers vanity plates with a Christian message. I should think not since it would be a private choice. It might be a useful way to fight this though, if possible.
jeanie on November 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
jp on November 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM
True. But…Jesus doesn’t really rate in Islam, either.
My point is that such is OK. Praising Jesus in a license plate isn’t, according to this ruling.
So much for the First Amendment–for sake of diversity or the children, of course.
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM
I might have missed it, but did the state offer up other plates for other religions?
BadgerHawk on November 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM
*~@:{(>
Seven Percent Solution on November 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM
It’s the 21st century, why can’t we design our own plates?
lorien1973 on November 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Federal workers will be ripping those crosses out of the ground at Arlington in my lifetime. It will be an unprecedented horror of leftist statism gone mad, but it will definitely happen.
Rational Thought on November 10, 2009 at 7:32 PM
We have people getting steamed over a cross on a license plate and going to court over it, while a jihadist in the Army slips through the cracks perhaps because some people didn’t want to be politically incorrect enough to put up warning flags. What a screwed-up country.
ddrintn on November 10, 2009 at 7:32 PM
It’s unconstitutional to make a distinction against religious groups.
Mojave Mark on November 10, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Wasn’t enviromentalism just found to be a religion in Europe?
No enviromental group plates then too.
journeyintothewhirlwind on November 10, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Home sweet home….
seejanemom on November 10, 2009 at 7:32 PM
A license plate that it is not mandatory to have on one’s car, and that in no way comes near being an establishment of a religion is NOT unconstitutional.
How does one become a judge without taking ConLaw?
RDuke on November 10, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Probably to help keep the number of fraudulant plates to a minimum.
boomer on November 10, 2009 at 7:32 PM
The Obama religion has been approved
faraway on November 10, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Judge Cameron Currie is a Clinton appointee…just FYI.
SouthernGent on November 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Since states charge more for these type of plates, you’d think these would be a no brainer … bringing extra revenue to the state.
But no … Christianity must be minimalized as much as possible.
darwin on November 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:
No longer valid, for it was inherently racist by not mentioning Islam.
How DARE you confuse this debate with truth?
/sarc
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Fine. Then get rid of those muslim postage stamps.
Ohhh … that’s different?
Ronnie on November 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Let’s start a not-for-profit and file suit.
boomer on November 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM
interesting grouping of symbols. one way it looks like an angry person with steam coming out of his head. . . the other way it looks like a clown with a pointy hat and tie.
I can’t tell if you are angry or happy.
ThackerAgency on November 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Because it looks like the state is endorsing that particular speech.
crr6 on November 10, 2009 at 7:35 PM
I4ANI
faraway on November 10, 2009 at 7:35 PM
WTF?
ronsfi on November 10, 2009 at 7:35 PM
“Looks like”? That’s the standard?
ddrintn on November 10, 2009 at 7:36 PM
What is that fish thingy that you see on cars every now and then?
Vince on November 10, 2009 at 7:37 PM
The government seems to have no qualms with church and state when stealing the hard earned dollars of members of the church. Just sayin’.
jimmy2shoes on November 10, 2009 at 7:37 PM
But the “itbach al yahud” license plate is a-okay, right?
mjk on November 10, 2009 at 7:37 PM
No, the standard is “anything to do with Christianity”.
darwin on November 10, 2009 at 7:37 PM
FIFY, because that is what the Left wants. Ask Blue Fin, crr6, and all the other lib disruptors who come here to hurt and attack us day after day.
In my case, they have to get past my guns first.
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Because, as we all know, in order to establish a religion, a state must first begin a massive license plate campaign. Fortunately, the judiciary caught this.
Weight of Glory on November 10, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Or when Democrat pols want to go bloviate in some black church.
ddrintn on November 10, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Faded and peeling Kerry/Gore bumper stickers?
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Remember these are the governments/courts in full CYA over any terrorist attack that doesn’t involve planes full of people flying into buildings and are worried about the backlash on Muslims after terrorist attacks (you know, the backlash that never happens). Not so good with the judgement.
mjk on November 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM
The key words here are “liberal judge”. Enough said.
Bullhead on November 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM
I have no idea and it doesn’t matter. If it didn’t, the solution is to offer other religions plates too, not to further unconstitutionally restrict the rights of Christians. IIRC, the person requesting the special plates have to pay for them, so it costs the government nothing.
I should add that I almost certainly would not get a license plate like this, but I find the very idea that it’s unconstitutional to be a dire perversion of the constitution and Allah’s communist dictator-like support for a move like this makes me sick to my stomach. In fact, I’m so disgusted with him I’m done defending him whenever people unfairly bash him for posting a news item they don’t like. Screw him.
Darth Executor on November 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM
The consequences of electing liberals…
The end
orlandocajun on November 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Just strike the Constitutional RIGHT “And free exercise therof”.
“I’m Barrack Hussein Obama and I approve this message”.
Yea, lots of Christian’s going on killing sprees lately.
dthorny on November 10, 2009 at 7:40 PM
I, for one, am relieved. Soon everyone would be forced to have crosses on their plates.
Spirit of 1776 on November 10, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Since license plates are distributed by and purchased from the state, to serve government purposes, then I get that religion should not be involved.
I see no problem…
If you want to promote your religion, however, you are free to plaster as many bumper stickers on your automobile as you wish. For example, I was at Whole Foods today and saw a parking lot full of Obama/Biden ’08 stickers.
visions on November 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
I’m trying to picture the symbols for other religions. What would the atheist plate look like?
AnninCA on November 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
This is ridiculous. This is not the establishment of religion. People have the option to buy or not to buy one of these plates. Also, in case people have forgotten, the second part of that sentence in the constitution states; nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. The judge is doing just that.
Bill R. on November 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
A frowny, pissed-off face. LOL
ddrintn on November 10, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Allahpundit: Why does this make you happy? Are you so weak willed that you think seeing a cross on a license plate might change your views? Hell, you don’t even drive.
atheists = pu$$ies
Blake on November 10, 2009 at 7:42 PM
One is a solemn spiritual rite, the other is a cynical ploy to dodge traffic tickets from Christian cops.
RightOFLeft on November 10, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Yeah, this isn’t a constitutional issue, it’s a political correctness issue.
Spirit of 1776 on November 10, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I don’t see what the problem is here – no one is forcing them to get the plates – it’s an option just like the wildlife ones are.
I think someone who is Jewish should have the option to get the Star of David too
gophergirl on November 10, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Where have you BEEN the last 25 years? Christianity is evil, as the Dems have been saying that time.
Abortion: We HATE women!
Affirmative Action: We hate blacks
Affirmative Action: We want to restart slavery
Lower Taxes: WE hate the poor
Lower taxes: We want to starve grandma
Lower taxes: we want to kick grandma in her wheelchair down a concrete steps
The Environment: We want to poison the planet so our kids choke to death
School lunch: WE gave a 6% INCREASE but that’s a CUT in the program.
You get the idea, princess.
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 7:43 PM
One word alternative: Stickers
Put Christian stickers on yer plate and tell ‘em to go to hell if they don’t like it. As long as they don’t interfere with reading the plate why not?
mikepatr on November 10, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Are you kidding? You can duct-tape a Bible to your trunk and that wouldn’t work with the cops.
ddrintn on November 10, 2009 at 7:44 PM
I don’t see the problem with the constitutionality. People can buy vanity plates that say all sorts of things that the State is not endorsing nor do people construe it to be endorsing.
If we agree to ban “I believe” as a personal choice, how could “In God we Trust” actually said by the state on money required to be taken as legal tender stand? I would appeal until the plates rust off the cars of people that bought them.
KW64 on November 10, 2009 at 7:44 PM
It is that wonderful time of the year when the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ will be banned from the courthouse square.
jimmy2shoes on November 10, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Will be forwarding this to my pastor…along with a reminder that at beginning to plan for a hostile secular environment might be a wise idea.
Dark-Star on November 10, 2009 at 7:46 PM
That’s a good point.
BadgerHawk on November 10, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Only half-kidding. Some people will try anything.
RightOFLeft on November 10, 2009 at 7:46 PM
I never thought about getting a vanity plate, attracts too much attention for the vandals. However, let’s say I wanted to get a plate with a cross on it or whatever, does this ruling mean I can’t? As long as the number is visible, why should it matter what else is on the plate unless it is vulgar or offensive?
Daemonocracy on November 10, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Note this decision: A personal choice of what to have as an addition to a piece of private property is unconstitutional.
OK, fine. A liberal have a peace sign on anything he owns is also unconstitutional.
See how the libs would fight about THAT.
This ruling will get shot down later. Expect it, make it happen.
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 7:47 PM
And it’s only a short logical jump from there to carving crosses on the foreheads of unbelievers. Alas, we’ll have to find a different strategy to get the cross on public items. *twists pencil thin mustache manically*
Weight of Glory on November 10, 2009 at 7:47 PM
What’s next? Allowing muslim extremists in our military and our General claiming diversity is its strength?
dthorny on November 10, 2009 at 7:47 PM
JUUZZZZ
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 10, 2009 at 7:48 PM
ISLMSUX
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 10, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Because if a state provides vanity license plates for different religions, next thing you know… SCIENTOLOGY IS THE STATE RELIGION! IT’S A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
Eh. I can’t worry myself up over it anymore.
Keljeck on November 10, 2009 at 7:26 PM
They would have a cute little spaceship,on the plate, eradiating knowledge to the humans.
faol on November 10, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Link
Those headstones contain all sorts of symbols, not just the cross.
highhopes on November 10, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Well, Muslims are Official Victims, of course.
ddrintn on November 10, 2009 at 7:49 PM
He’s the second most venerated human being in Islam, second only to Muhammad.
Keljeck on November 10, 2009 at 7:51 PM
The cross is vulgar and offensive to a large portion of the liberal left.
jimmy2shoes on November 10, 2009 at 7:51 PM
IDIOTS are running the asylum. I hope this judge is an elected official so they can vote his sorry, stupid a$$ out!
ihasurnominashun on November 10, 2009 at 7:51 PM
That part really stuck out to me as well.
Weight of Glory on November 10, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Great. Go after the license plate, when you want to gut the engine for emissions for some other religion.
John the Libertarian on November 10, 2009 at 7:51 PM
We really need to start a schedule. All the various victims, in turn, get their year of being “honored” for their victimhood. The homeless, gays, Muslims, women, illegals, blacks, Hispanics, the uninsured… each get’s their year in the spotlight.
highhopes on November 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM
what’s the difference between the private group’s plate and the religious symbols that appear on tombstones at Arlington?
Link
Those headstones contain all sorts of symbols, not just the cross.
highhopes on November 10, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Why not let anyone have whatever they want.
I would get a spear and magic helmet.
faol on November 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Doesn’t matter. The presence of those religious symbols on government property implies that the government endorses all those religions. Gotta keep that wall of separation and stuff.
ddrintn on November 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM
One step further: Muslims consider Jesus a prophet whereas the Talmud does nothing but blaspheme the Lord.
Seems a bit backwards and odd.
True_King on November 10, 2009 at 7:53 PM
These are “vanity” plates. Nobody is being forced to attatch them to their vehicle. Just make one for each religion, or just have them as a non official state plate. In PA, you’ll see “You’ve got a Friend in” JESUS plates everywhere.
disillusioned on November 10, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »