History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Hat tip to Kenny Rodgers
I've been told that the principle involved --from Ron Paul's standpoint -- was govt payment to lawyers (under whatever guise.) That was why he supported it: _no_ tax monies to be given to lawyers.
Bill, the explanation may indeed be along the lines you indicate.
I've just found that the bill as introduced was intended "[t]o amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to prevent the use of the legal system in a manner that extorts money from State and local governments, and the Federal Government, and inhibits such governments' constitutional actions under the first, tenth, and fourteenth amendments."
That said, I'd appreciate any further explanation that readers may provide.
I hope he does have a logical explanation and one that is compatible with a political philosophy of individual liberty. The question remains, however, what is that explanation.
Paul is a federalist on "culture war" issues. He has strongly supported legislation to keep the federal courts from interfering with state and/or local regulation of these matters.
This looks to be an example of that sort of legislation. While issues at the Air Force academy suggest that we shouldn't ignore a need for the Federal courts to hold the Federal government to the 1st amendment, one can imagine that this wasn't a key consideration when this bill was passed.
I do not know why but I would be willing to bet if you did ask him he would have a logical explanation for it.
"In 2005, when Weinstein filed suit against the Air Force for constitutional violations of church-state separation, the house of representatives, with little public notice, passed a chilling bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act, H.R. 2679, provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions that violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorney's fees. According to The Washington Post, the purpose of this bill is to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion."
House vote #480 (September 26, 2006) shows Ron Paul voting for this bill. Why?