Trump Names Religion Essential Business
President Trump on Friday announced religions are essential business and that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued guidelines on how to open religious buildings safely for worship. The President then said he would overrule any State that does not treat religions as essential.
Then the fireworks began.
In the press conference, the members of the press present peppered the Press Secretary with questions about how religious institutions can open safely and why does the President think he has the authority to overrule State Governments. At least one MSNBC commentator opined that naming religious institutions as essential is a violation of the separation of Church and State.
That the media raised any objection is a measure of how the press reacts in a knee jerk fashion, without any thought, to simply disagree with everything President Trump says.
Let's consider these points.
The first point - how can churches, synagogues and mosques open safely - was ridiculous. Were they not listening or just did not care that at the same time the President announced houses of worship to be essential, he also announced the CDC published guidelines on how to do this safely? How is providing guidelines to guide houses of worship and allowing them to open any different or less safe than allowing secular organizations to open after they have been provided with guidelines?
The second point - what authority does the President have to intervene and overrule States if they do not abide by this announcement? Where to start, where to start.
Enforcement authority #1 - The First Amendment to the Constitution says Congress may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court of the United States has said with the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment applies to States - so State governments may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. In fact, citizens have been filing suit against States for violation of their Religious Freedoms and the US Attorney General has stated that the Constitution is not suspended.
Enforcement authority #2 - Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act says no State official may deny an individual their Constitutional rights. This is not limited to just race related rights but it protects against state officials limiting any right of any individual. The Department of Justice Civil Rights division has been making statements to the effect that they are evaluating State lock down orders.
It makes you wonder if the media doesn't read their own reporting because if they did, this question would not have been asked. They'd know there are multiple Court challenges to State lock down orders and that Wisconsin's orders have been overturned by their Supreme Court and the Oregon order was overturned by a lower court. The Trump Administration could just as easily bring legal action against States in Federal court.
Then there is the final point - that naming religious institutions as essential is a violation of the separation of Church and State. How is ensuring the First Amendment right to practice religion a violation of separating Church and State?
The only explanation for the stated position is the commentator objects to the labeling of religious houses of worship as "essential." If only houses of worship were deemed essential and nothing else, he might have a point. However, when other comparable institutions (e.g. big box stores that can hold a lot of people, restaurants and barbers/salons where people sit down to listen and be served) are deemed essential and houses of worship are excluded - even discriminated against without justification - then promoting equal treatment is enforcing the First Amendment, not violating it.
Update: Recently, the Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 Majority, upheld California's restrictions on religious institutions. I read both the Majority and the Minority opinions and feel they both agree with what I have stated above, that treating against religious institutions differently than similar non-religious institutions is not permitted.
Now how can two opposite positions both agree with me?
Simple - where the two sides differed was on what they considered comparable non-religious institutions. The Majority Opinion listed a variety of businesses that are treated the same way under California's rules as churches, synagogues, and mosques and used that to justify their position. The Minority Opinion cited a variety of businesses that are being given more favorable treatment as the basis for their opinion.
Then the fireworks began.
In the press conference, the members of the press present peppered the Press Secretary with questions about how religious institutions can open safely and why does the President think he has the authority to overrule State Governments. At least one MSNBC commentator opined that naming religious institutions as essential is a violation of the separation of Church and State.
That the media raised any objection is a measure of how the press reacts in a knee jerk fashion, without any thought, to simply disagree with everything President Trump says.
Let's consider these points.
The first point - how can churches, synagogues and mosques open safely - was ridiculous. Were they not listening or just did not care that at the same time the President announced houses of worship to be essential, he also announced the CDC published guidelines on how to do this safely? How is providing guidelines to guide houses of worship and allowing them to open any different or less safe than allowing secular organizations to open after they have been provided with guidelines?
The second point - what authority does the President have to intervene and overrule States if they do not abide by this announcement? Where to start, where to start.
Enforcement authority #1 - The First Amendment to the Constitution says Congress may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court of the United States has said with the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment applies to States - so State governments may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. In fact, citizens have been filing suit against States for violation of their Religious Freedoms and the US Attorney General has stated that the Constitution is not suspended.
Enforcement authority #2 - Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act says no State official may deny an individual their Constitutional rights. This is not limited to just race related rights but it protects against state officials limiting any right of any individual. The Department of Justice Civil Rights division has been making statements to the effect that they are evaluating State lock down orders.
It makes you wonder if the media doesn't read their own reporting because if they did, this question would not have been asked. They'd know there are multiple Court challenges to State lock down orders and that Wisconsin's orders have been overturned by their Supreme Court and the Oregon order was overturned by a lower court. The Trump Administration could just as easily bring legal action against States in Federal court.
Then there is the final point - that naming religious institutions as essential is a violation of the separation of Church and State. How is ensuring the First Amendment right to practice religion a violation of separating Church and State?
The only explanation for the stated position is the commentator objects to the labeling of religious houses of worship as "essential." If only houses of worship were deemed essential and nothing else, he might have a point. However, when other comparable institutions (e.g. big box stores that can hold a lot of people, restaurants and barbers/salons where people sit down to listen and be served) are deemed essential and houses of worship are excluded - even discriminated against without justification - then promoting equal treatment is enforcing the First Amendment, not violating it.
Update: Recently, the Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 Majority, upheld California's restrictions on religious institutions. I read both the Majority and the Minority opinions and feel they both agree with what I have stated above, that treating against religious institutions differently than similar non-religious institutions is not permitted.
Now how can two opposite positions both agree with me?
Simple - where the two sides differed was on what they considered comparable non-religious institutions. The Majority Opinion listed a variety of businesses that are treated the same way under California's rules as churches, synagogues, and mosques and used that to justify their position. The Minority Opinion cited a variety of businesses that are being given more favorable treatment as the basis for their opinion.
Comments