January 28, 2016::End of the day round-up

Oregon armed protesters invoke the Constitution -- annotated by a conspiracy theorist

It’s the Constitution. But not the way most people read it.

It includes all 4,543 words inscribed by the Founding Fathers, with 18th century spelling and punctuation preserved, but the pocket Constitution held aloft by Ammon Bundy at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge contains some additional notations courtesy of an anti-communist conspiracy theorist named W. Cleon Skousen.

Skousen, who once accused President Dwight D. Eisenhower of being a Soviet agent and whom Time magazine once labeled an “exemplar of the right-wing ultras,” pairs the original Constitutional text with quotes from Founding Fathers about the necessity of religion in governance.

Its message: The Founding Fathers intended the United States to be a Christian nation, beholden to a Christian god, and never intended the federal government to have any power over its people.
,,,
The Bundys and their supporters refer to the Constitution constantly: during speeches, of course, but also over bowls of soup at lunch or at campfires at night.

They have invoked its privileges to justify their occupation, especially Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, called the Enclave Clause, which they argue means the federal government shall own no land.

Mainstream constitutional scholars dismiss such an analysis, but it has reemerged as a favored tool of the American lands movement, which seeks to transfer federal land to states, counties and private entities.

Ted Cruz having a shitty go of things lately,,,

Just in case you missed it! Ted Cruz Busted Lying About Losing His Insurance Due To Obamacare, He Still Has Coverage https://t.co/o8KtgjZxMg

Ted Cruz: 'I'm a Christian first, American second.' Imagine if Muslim or Jewish politician said that

The politics of this aside, I want to highlight here something we might call Christian Privilege. Could you imagine, for example, a Jewish candidate for president saying that he or she was a Jew first and an American second? Now imagine the sheer outrage if a Muslim American of any prominence whatsoever declared that he or she was Muslim first and American second. People’s heads would explode.

On a related note, imagine a presidential candidate saying he or she was black, white, or Latino (or any other ethnic group) first, and American second.,,, Only a Christian has the privilege—and only ones like Ted Cruz, who present themselves as holier than thou, would have the gall—to claim otherwise.

On ‪#‎ThisDayInHistory‬ 1986, the space shuttle Challenger explodes just 73 seconds after liftoff.

Gregory Jarvis: Buffalo’s connection to the Challenger disaster 30 years ago

Gregory Jarvis was supposed to come back to campus – along with the flag.

When the payload specialist lifted off on board the Challenger, 30 years ago on Thursday, the 1967 University of Buffalo graduate took with him a UB flag.

The Challenger’s fate – the space shuttle exploded slightly more than a minute after takeoff, killing Jarvis and six other crew members – remains etched in the nation’s history.

His death meant he would not return to UB to present the school flag he took on the mission.

Now, the flag – its cobalt and white colors still vibrant, its gold fringe intact – rests in the archives at UB’s North Campus in Amherst.

Marcia Jarvis, his widow, calls it a fitting home for the flag.

America’s Best Jewel Thief Is An 85-Year-Old Woman - The Daily Beast

If diamonds are a girl’s best friend, Doris Payne hasn’t met a stranger in well over six decades.

A coal miner’s daughter born in rural Slab Fork, West Virginia, the 85-year-old might well be the most prolific international jewel thief the world has ever known. Payne, who by all accounts may never have held down a job on “the books,” has made a better than healthy living hopscotching around the globe in pursuit of shiny baubles and other luxury goods.

Armed with nothing more than an easy smile, designer clothes, and an exquisite handbag, Payne routinely charmed jewelry story employees out of their wares. The final take has never been officially tallied, but the largess gleaned from her illicit escapades is thought to easily number in the tens of millions. At one time, she was the subject of criminal warrants on two continents and tracked by Interpol, the 190-member multi-national organization that hunts fugitives.

January 12, 2016::End of the day round-up

Been watching how this incident develops for personal reasons.  My visit to the ER after my stroke ended after 2 hours of not much of any "treatment"; sent home still in extreme distress.

Police dash cam video details the last moments of woman who died after being thrown out of hospital

Dawson died from health complications from the clot and her weight and there is no evidence of police brutality. However, the very act of forcibly removing a seriously overweight person who was obviously under health duress should itself be under scrutiny. Why do we continue to lean on calling the police for every single inconvenience? Was Dawson’s condition stabilized?

A police report indicates that it took almost twenty minutes for Dawson to receive assistance. Twenty minutes for a woman who collapsed just outside of hospital doors. The officers only took appropriate medical action after her prolonged collapse dispelled the notion that she was just making herself dead weight to resist arrest.

The Journey Out: Women Who Escaped a Polygamist Mormon Cult Share Their Story

The twin towns of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah—a border community formerly known as Short Creek, which is home to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS)—are a place of immense beauty and unspeakable pain.

Founded in 1913 by Mormon Fundamentalists who broke away from the traditional Latter-Day Saints church in order to practice the principal of plural marriage, this community, geographically isolated by the Vermillion Cliffs of the Colorado Plateau, is a step back in time for anyone who drives through it. Here, women dress modestly in ankle-length, arm-covering prairie dresses and wear no makeup. Because it is believed that in heaven they will wash their husbands' feet with their hair, they keep it long and braided in elaborate ropes down their backs. Men increase their chances of becoming gods themselves in heaven, if they take a plurality of wives; the more, the better. In this community, present-day polygamy is alive, but not so well.

Though the Mormon Church has officially disowned the fundamentalists, the FLDS trace their lineage all the way back to founding Prophet Joseph Smith. John Y. Barlow (whose last name is claimed still today by many of his descendants) was the first leader of the FLDS, until his death in 1949. He was succeeded by a series of men; more recent was "Uncle Rulon" Jeffs, who died in 2002 and was famously succeeded as Prophet by his son Warren.
,,,
Leaving the FLDS is not a simple process. Most women flee without much more than the clothes on their backs and whatever belongings they are able to throw quickly into a plastic garbage bag. Once you're out, you are considered an apostate. The same goes for any children you bring with you. Those who leave the cult are shunned by all family and friends who remain in the FLDS.

Texas Gov. Proposes New Amendments To US Constitution Which Could Gravely Affect LGBT Civil Rights

Abbott's proposed amendments, which he announced at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, read like an anti-government, states' rights fan's dream:

• Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.
• Require Congress to balance its budget.
• Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
• Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.
• Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
• Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
• Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
• Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
• Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.

Louie Gohmert tells the Supreme Court: Jesus’ law more important than constitutional law

But Louie, it is not just Moses that is depicted in or on (the East Pediment) the building that occupies 1 First Street, Northeast, Washington, D.C.. You seem to leave out of your narrative that Moses is not given any special emphasis in the numerous depictions:  his figure is not larger than the others;  he is not displaying any type of dominance over the other figures; nor is the Decalogue (a hotly contested notion at best) written in full.  " Over time, the use of two tablets has become a symbol for the Commandments, and more generally, ancient laws. Tablets signify the permanence of the law when “written in stone.”

Specifically in the frieze mentioned, Moses is holding two tablets (let's assume the Ten Commandments),but only commandments six through ten are visible usually considered the more secular of commands.  That would fit with Weinman's design for said frieze,

Weinman’s training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building. Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court Building. Faithful to classical sources and drawing from many civilizations, Weinman designed a procession of “great lawgivers of history” for the south and north walls to portray the development of law. Each frieze in the Courtroom measures 40 feet long by 7 feet, 2 inches high and is made of ivory vein Spanish marble

And, no Louie Christ did not define marriage between one man and one woman.

“It is a matter of a constitutional crisis when the Highest Court in the land not merely strikes down and says that their opinion is more important than Moses’, depicted up there in the center point of this room, more important than Moses’, depicted in the marble wall over the Supreme Court, holding the Ten Commandments,” the congressman said on the House floor.

“The Supreme Court says theirs is more important than the opinions established and stated by Jesus Christ when he said–and he was quoting Moses–that a man shall leave his mother and father, a woman leave her home, and the two will come together and be one flesh, and what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

  “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3

Louie Gohmert tells the Supreme Court: Jesus’ law more important than constitutional law

Addicting Info – Homophobic Nut: Texas Should Stop Gay Marriage Like They Stopped Abortions (AUDIO)

So, in other words, this man is advocating for ways to openly defy the Supreme Court of the United States simply because people don’t have to live by his version of Biblical law according to the highest court in the land. If this isn’t alarming to rational people, it should be. This sets the precedent for states to decide that it doesn’t matter one iota how the Supreme Court rules on any matter, that they can do as they please anyway via loopholes and backdoor legislation that undermines Supreme Court rulings. Scary stuff.

Addicting Info – Homophobic Nut: Texas Should Stop Gay Marriage Like They Stopped Abortions (AUDIO)

Barton Says The Founding Fathers 'Tied Religion To The Constitution To Give It Strength' Through Oath Requirements | Right Wing Watch

There are two slight problems with Barton's assertion:

1. The constitution does not require anyone to swear an oath. In every instance in the Constitution in which it requires an oath, that terms is followed by “or affirmation,” which is a non-religious promise.
2. The only instance where a specific oath is given, in Article II, Section 1, it says (note: no “So help me God” at the end):

”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

On yesterday's program, Barton explained that that the Constitution’s requirement that members of Congress and the president take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" was the Founding Fathers' way of infusing religion into the document since an oath is a "direct appeal to God" to hold lawmakers accountable for their actions and "there is no such thing as a secular oath."

Any oath that is not made to God, Barton said, must instead rely on "the goodness of man and there's not a whole lot in me that says the goodness of man is great. Just look back across the Twentieth Century and the one hundred and fifty million lives that were lost because Stalin wasn't good and Hitler wasn't good and Tojo wasn't good and Pol Pot wasn't good."

The Founders knew this, Barton said, and so they "tied religion to the Constitution to give it strength" through these oath requirements, asserting that any attempt to implement the Constitution without religion is like trying to breathe on the moon.

Barton Says The Founding Fathers 'Tied Religion To The Constitution To Give It Strength' Through Oath Requirements | Right Wing Watch

Cliven Bundy EXPOSED for what he is

I'm fairly certain y'all have heard about the Cliven Bubdy v BLM bullshit. I haven't posted much about it because I knew there would be more information coming forth; information that would not be favorable to Bundy. Based on what little I had read when things began to come to a head my immediate conclusion, Bundy IS a follower of the sovereign citizen movement.

The following articles highlight what the Reich is ignoring,,,

EXPOSED: The Source Of Cliven Bundy's Crackpot Constitutionalism

The unfolding drama in the Nevada desert over a deadbeat cattle rancher's refusal to pay customary grazing fees like every other rancher, continues to excite the Tea Party pseudo-patriots who believe that threatening a range war in defense of personal greed is a mark of virtue. However, Cliven Bundy's domestic terrorism serves nothing more than his own selfish financial interests, and the crusade he purports to lead is rooted in the worst sort of perversion of constitutional principles.

[,,,]
Now we have evidence of where Bundy may have picked up his constitutional delusions. In a recent media appearance, Bundy was proudly displaying a copy of the Constitution in his shirt pocket.

After searching for the distinctive cover of the document in Bundy's pocket, the publisher turned out to be the innocuously named National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS). However, the NCCS is not the commendable educational organization it purports to be. It began life as the Freemen Institute, a vehicle for the far-right, Mormon, anti-commie, history revisionist, W. Cleon Skousen. Skousen taught that the Constitution was inspired by a God who intended America to be a Christian nation. He also professed the canon of white supremicism that Anglo-Saxons are descended from a lost tribe of Israel. The Southern Poverty Law Center chronicled the NCCS curriculum based on Skousen's philosophy saying that he...

An abbreviated look at rancher Cliven Bundy's family history

It has been widely reported that Cliven Bundy’s family claims to have ranched in the Bunkerville area since the 1870s even though a federal judge held a different view of Bundy’s history.

Bundy repeated a similar claim Thursday when he told TheBlaze website: “My family has preemptive, adjudicated livestock water rights filed with the state of Nevada. They were established in 1877 when the first pioneers entered the valley. Among those first pioneers were my grandparents from my mother’s side. My father either bought or inherited his Nevada state livestock water rights and I, in turn, have done the same.”

Contrast that with the 1998 opinion from U.S. District Judge Johnnie Rawlinson in a case where it was determined Bundy wouldn’t be allowed to use federal land for his cattle because of failure to pay grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management. Rawlinson wrote that it wasn’t until roughly 1954 that “Bundy or his father or both have grazed livestock on public lands owned by the United States and administered by the BLM.”

Clark County Recorder documents show the 160-acre Bunkerville ranch Bundy calls home was purchased by his parents, David and Bodel Bundy, from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt on Jan. 5, 1948. The purchase included the transfer to the Bundys of certain water rights, including water from the nearby Virgin River. Cliven Bundy was born in 1946.

Our courts and our Constitution have spoken on this issue

As reported by the Montgomery Advertiser, Alabama House approves Ten Commandments bill:

The Ten Commandments could be displayed in Alabama public schools and state government buildings if mixed with historical and education documents, under a proposed constitutional amendment approved Thursday by the Alabama House of Representatives.

Lawmakers voted 77-19 in favor of the measure, which now moves to the Alabama Senate. Voters must also approve the amendment for it to become law.

"This country was founded on godly principles. ... That's our roots," said bill sponsor Rep. DuWayne Bridges, R-Valley. "We have a right to go back to what our roots are."

Bridges said people would be free to worship how they choose and that the displays would not promote a particular religious view. Opponents predicted the displays would prompt lawsuits and be looked on by the courts as illegal attempts to establish a preferred religion in Alabama.

The first question that comes to mind, which version of the Decalogue are you referring?  I may sound pedantic, but consider this. There are three versions of the Ten Commandments in the Bible: Exodus 20:2-17 (generally found within Judaism and Protestant sects), Exodus 34:12-26 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 (generally associated with Catholicism and the Lutheran Church). We also have the Muslim version found scattered throughout the Qur'an. So which denomination should lead the crusade?

A second point, as highlighted by a Christian Post interview with Dan Barker of FFRF concerning this recent event:

Barker argued that each of the first four Commandments violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "Thou shalt have no god before me," the atheist quoted. "Our government can't tell anyone whom to worship." In his view, having the government publicly support the Ten Commandments amounts to declaring Christianity as the state religion.

"Thou shalt not make any graven image," Baker said, quoting the Second Commandment. He argued that this Commandment amounts to "telling us what kind of artwork we can make," and that it is "anti-freedom." The Third Commandment, "thou shalt not take God's name in vain," violates free speech, according to the FFRF co-president. And the Fourth, honoring the Sabbath Day, is also egregious: "Our government has no basis to tell us what day to worship," Baker declared.

Baker admitted that the remaining six Commandments "have some value," but he argued that only three — the prohibitions against stealing, murder, and perjury — have any basis in American law. "The Ten Commandments are meaningful to some people, but they are not the basis of American freedoms," the atheist declared.

Third, the SCOTUS has spoken quite firmly on the issue in the past, something the Reich seems to ignore.  In a 5-to-4 decision (Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 - 1980), the SCOTUS ruled that a Kentucky law violated the first part of the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman (aka the Lemon Test) and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Court found that the requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted "had no secular legislative purpose" and was "plainly religious in nature." The Court noted that the Commandments did not confine themselves to arguably secular matters (such as murder, stealing, etc.), but rather concerned matters such as the worship of God and the observance of the Sabbath Day.

“The preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one's parents, killing or murder,  [449 U.S. 39, 42]  adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. See Exodus 20:12-17; Deuteronomy 5:16-21.  Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day. See Exodus 20:1-11; Deuteronomy 5:6-15.

[,,,]
It does not matter that the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are financed by voluntary private contributions, for the mere posting of the copies under the auspices of the legislature provides the "official support of the State . . . Government" that the Establishment Clause prohibits. 374 U.S., at 222 ; see Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431 (1962). 4 Nor is it significant that the Bible verses involved in this case are merely posted on the wall, rather than read aloud as in Schempp and Engel, for "it is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment." Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 225. We conclude that Ky. Rev. [449 U.S. 39, 43]   Stat. 158.178 (1980) violates the first part of the Lemon v. Kurtzman test, and thus the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

As a caveat, it is important to note that Barker mentions the 5-4 ruling of SCOTUS in Van Orden vs. Perry (2005).  In this instance, the Court ruled the monument conveyed both a religious and secular message in combination with the other monuments on the site. Without getting into the nitty-gritty details, there are instances where this mixing of messages has been allowed, but as Barker pointed out, "the purpose [in Alabama] is clearly religious."

After reading the Ten Commandments on the House floor, Rep. Richard Baughn, R-Lynn, said, "I don't know why anybody would disagree with these ten."

"We are the greatest nation on the Earth because God's hand of blessing has been on us," Baughn said.

Fourth, I am not sure what "roots" Bridges is referring to as it is obvious that history is not this man's strong suit.   The only document that matters in this country is the Constitution, a legal document devoid of any reference to God, Jesus and/or Christianity.  (Why do you think the religionists avoid it like the plague and cite the Declaration of Independence instead?  Why do you think the Convention of States bullshit is becoming popular in the Reich?  They want to re-write the Constitution as a means to support their vision of a theocratic nation.) All one has to do is look at the preamble which states, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union,,,."  The Founders knew what they were doing.  This was not an act of omission, but a deliberate means to keep government separate from religion.  "[T]he people" that is where the US government derives its power, not God; and definitely not the evangelical Christian God envisioned by the Reich.

How do I know this?  History tells me.

We have John Leland who opined in 1790, “The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever,,,."  In 1797 the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by the Senate of the United States and signed by President John Adams states, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion.”  Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association called for a "wall of separation between church and State."  And James Madison who in the early 1800s continued the understanding of a secular government, " Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

These statements, and the many more like them, clearly show that our Founders and early religious leaders understood that religion needed to be separated from Government.  Taking that one step further (or back), history also teaches us that the writers of the Constitution created an independent government not only out of Enlightenment thinking but also borrowed from the ancient Greeks, Romans and Great Britain.

Great Britain?  But isn't Britain's common law, from which many precepts of the Constitution derive, founded on Christian principles making the the Constitution a Christian document?  What about the various Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage?

According to the mighty words of Thomas Jefferson, we did in fact inherit common law from Great Britain.  Which as explained by Jefferson in his 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper was derived from pre-Christian Saxons rather than from Biblical scripture:

For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons, on their settlement in England, and altered, from time to time, by proper legislative authority, from that, to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or lex scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century; but Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian King of the Heptarchy, having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever, therefore, was adopted into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period, we have a tolerable collection, by Lambard and Wilkins; probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it; but none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons, to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians; and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption; we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.

I won't be so bold as to say that it is obvious that the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with Constitutional law.  I have been simplistic in my overview.  But if one spends the time to look into such claims made by Bridges and his ilk, you will reach the same conclusion.  What I will say without hesitation, it is obvious that those who promote the Ten Commandments as historical or foundational to our nation and government do it for religious reasons only, which contradicts our secular Constitution.

Instead of placing the Ten Commandments in State courthouses and schools why not place a more appropriate monument such as a plaque with the actual words of the Constitution itself?

Or better yet, make everyone sit and watch this famous clip from George Carlin:

DeLay: Americans Have Forgotten That God Wrote The Constitution | Right Wing Watch

“I think we got off the track when we allowed our government to become a secular government, when we stopped realizing that God created this nation, that he wrote the Constitution, that it’s based on biblical principles, and we allowed those that don’t believe in those things to keep pushing us, pushing us, and pushing us away from the government. And instead of standing up and being unashamedly a follower of Jesus Christ and fighting for our values in our society.”

I have only one question:  if God wrote the Constitution, then why is he not mentioned? Try as they may, the Reich cannot cite any endorsement of religion, God, theism, or Christianity in the Constitution. The Constitution is secular and godless in character.

DeLay: Americans Have Forgotten That God Wrote The Constitution | Right Wing Watch

36 Senators Introduce Bill Prohibiting Virtually Any New Law Helping Workers | ThinkProgress

More than three-quarters of the Senate Republican caucus signed onto legislation introduced Wednesday by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rand Paul (R-KY) that could render it virtually impossible for Congress to enact any legislation intended to improve working conditions or otherwise regulate the workplace. Had their bill been in effect during the Twentieth Century, for example, there would likely be no nationwide minimum wage, no national ban on workplace discrimination, no national labor law and no overtime in most industries.

,,,It’s named the “Enumerated Powers Act of 2013,” a reference to the provisions of the Constitution outlining Congress’ specific powers, and it claims to require all federal legislation to “’contain a concise explanation of the specific authority in the Constitution’ that is the basis for its enactment.”

The key provision in this bill, however, would revive a discredited interpretation of the Constitution that America abandoned nearly eight decades ago. Although the text of the bill is not yet available online, a press release from Coburn’s office explains that it “[p]rohibits the use of the Commerce Clause, except for ‘the regulation of the buying and selling of goods or services, or the transporting for those purposes, across boundaries with foreign nations, across State lines, or with Indian tribes.’”

36 Senators Introduce Bill Prohibiting Virtually Any New Law Helping Workers | ThinkProgress

Federal Judge: Catholic Church Has A Constitutional Right Not To Compensate Victims Of Sex Abuse | ThinkProgress

A federal judge in Wisconsin handed down an opinion yesterday granting the Catholic Church — and indeed, potentially all religious institutions — such sweeping immunity from federal bankruptcy law that it is not clear that it would permit any plaintiff to successfully sue any church in any court. While the ostensible issue in this case is whether over $50 million in church funds are shielded from a bankruptcy proceeding triggered largely by a flood of clerical sex abuse claims against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Judge Rudolph Randa reads the church’s constitutional and legal right to religious liberty so broadly as to render religious institutions immune from much of the law.

The case involves approximately $57 million that former Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan transferred from the archdiocese’s general accounts to into a separate trust set up to maintain the church’s cemeteries. Although Dolan, who is now a cardinal, the Archbishop of New York and the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has denied that the purpose of this transfer was to shield the funds from lawsuits, Dolan penned a letter to the Vatican in 2007 where he explained that transferring the funds into the trust would lead to “an improved protection of these funds from any legal claim and liability.”

The issue facing the court is, essentially, whether the funds that Dolan split off into a separate trust can now be reabsorbed into the archdiocese’s assets in order to enable sex abuse victims and other creditors to be paid out of these assets,,,

[,,,]
And Randa does not stop there. He goes on to argue that senior church officials get to unilaterally decide what constitutes a “substantial burden” on their faith for purposes of federal law — “Archbishop Listecki’s declaration stands unopposed, and on the issue of religious doctrine, it is unassailable. Moreover, the issue of substantial burden is essentially coterminous with religious doctrin

Federal Judge: Catholic Church Has A Constitutional Right Not To Compensate Victims Of Sex Abuse | ThinkProgress