Uncle Sam, Don't Preach!

US District Judge Barbara Crabb of Madison ruled April 15 that a 1988 law requiring the President to declare the first Thursday in May as National Prayer Day is unconstitutional. (1) The case was brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison.

Those who are most vehemently opposed to the intrusion of the federal government into the lives of individual Americans can be expected to applaud this ruling, though so far they have not been heard from. Certainly, if any area of a person's life should be off-limits to government, it would be that of religious belief and practice. Rev. Billy Graham suggested a national day of prayer in 1952, and the Campus Crusade for Christ urged the passage of the bill that made it official. But the US Supreme Court has ruled that every law must have a secular purpose, and Judge Crabb found that this one does not. Rather, its sole purpose contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Now, I am not against prayer; in fact I pray every day. I have been praying since about 1952, and have never needed the slightest reminder from any government official to do so. The issue is not prayer itself, but rather whether a government official should officially advocate it.

While the Justice Department is considering whether to appeal the decision, the White House indicated that President Obama will issue the proclamation on May 6, as previously planned. Judge Crabb has stayed enforcement of her decision pending filing of an appeal. Given the rock-solid legal basis for the decision, it is hard to believe that either Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder have any enthusiasm for appealing it. ( 2) Even a pro-forma appeal will give private groups that favor public prayer an opportunity to file an amicus brief supporting the law. Although President Obama could simply accept the decision and cancel the proclamation, only a decision by the Supreme Court would be clearly binding upon future presidents. Accordingly, I would favor cancelling the proclamation but appealing only for the purpose of securing a binding decision at the highest level.

The National Prayer Day law is not coercive, but merely symbolic. The symbolic meaning is that it is right and proper for the federal government to recommend that Americans pray. To do this I say, "Thanks, but no thanks, I will decide that for myself on the first Thursday in May and every other day of every other year." I trust that the US Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court will say the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 16, 2010, page 1.

(2) Unlike his predecessor, Obama's religious beliefs do not appear to have any noticeable influence on his official actions.

Casting a Paul on GOP

A straw poll taken at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) in New Orleans April 8-10 indicated the following preferences for the 2012 presidential nomination:
Mitt Romney 439
Ron Paul 438
Sarah Palin 330
Newt Gingrich 331 (1)

The big surprise was that Rep. Paul (R, Texas), who lost every primary in his quest for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, was virtually tied for first place with Governor Romney, a top-tier contender in that contest. Those who attend party conferences are not representative of the rank-and-file voters in primary elections; they are the party activists, the very people who are most likely to pick a candidate early and really work for him or her.

Ron Paul is not a typical Republican congressman. He is extremely conservative on federal spending and isolationist in foreign policy, putting him at odds with former President George W Bush on both the budget and the Iraq War. Paul always votes against foreign aid and was the only Republican (along with only 4 Democrats) to oppose the House Resolution supporting Israel in the Gaza War of December, 2008. He is also notorious for his affinity for "Bilderberg-type" conspiracy theories. In short, he is on the kooky-fringe of the Republican Party.

No, I d0 not believe he has any chance of winning the 2012 Republican nomination. If he runs again then, he will be trounced again. But the size of his support at the SRLC is a sign that a substantial segment of the Republican Party activists are receptive to a message that combines vehement hostility to the federal government with xenophobia and credence in big conspiracies. Parties that have just lost the White House are especially vulnerable to ideologue movements, such as those who engineered the disastrous nominations of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George McGovern in 1972.

Meanwhile, Rep. Paul's son Rand, an ophthalmologist, is making a serious bid for the Republican nomination for senator in Kentucky, where the incumbent Jim Bunning has declined to seek re-election. The younger Paul claims the support of the Tea Party Movement, and his endorsement by Tea Party darling Sarah Palin appears to confirm the connection. (2) Paul proposes cutting Medicare and Social Security, and amending the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget.

He has also called for closing the US Detention Center at Guantanamo, and repatriating all prisoners who cannot be convicted of a crime to Afghanistan.(3) Largely because of this stance, former Vice President Dick Cheney is supporting his rival, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, for the senate nomination. Grayson also has the backing of the state's senior Senator Mitch McConnell and the GOP establishment.

If young Paul wins the May 18 primary, his drastic positions may endanger the ability of the Republican Party to hold onto this seat. The conflict between Rand Paul and Trey Grayson nicely illustrates the double-edges of the Tea Party sword: the movement attracts highly-motivated people to join the Republican Party and become active, but also may result in the nomination of unelectable fringe candidates.

Like Ambassador Joseph P Kennedy, Ron Paul will never achieve his dream of becoming President of the United States, but he is "kvelling" that his son is on his way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press, April 11, 2010.

(2) Kate Zernike of the NY Times, same day.

(3) A CIA intelligence analyst who interviewed Guantanamo detainees estimated that about a third had no connection to terrorism at all. A subsequent study by the Seton Hall Law School found that most of them had not committed any act against the United States, and only about 8% were Al Qaeda fighters. (Jonathan Chait in the New Republic, April 8, 2010, page 2). According to author Jane Mayer of The Dark Side, Bush administration officials found evidence that about 200 detainees were innocent.