State House leaders, including the chairman and vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and chairman of the House Government Oversight and Accountability Committee, today proposed a plan to let voters decide whether to keep the Ten Commandments monument.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision disappointed Rep. Jon Echols, R-Oklahoma City, who said he has every intention of working with the other House leaders to file a resolution for the 2016 legislative session that would repeal the section of the state constitution cited in this decision.
In the decision, the Supreme Court wrote the following regarding how the Ten Commandments marker doesn’t violate federal law but does violate the state constitution:
To be sure, the United States Supreme Court case Van Orden v. Perry (2005) ruled that the Texas Ten Commandments monument did not violate the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the issue in the case at hand is whether the Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument violated the Oklahoma Constitution, not whether it violated the Establishment Clause. Our opinion rests solely on the Oklahoma Constitution with no regard for federal jurisprudence.
Echols, an attorney and vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the issue lies with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state constitution.
“After reading this decision, I understand where the problem is,” Echols said. “The state Supreme Court misapplied an archaic and progressive section of our state constitution and used that to apply a ruling that goes against the belief structure of the majority of Oklahomans. That’s why I plan on crafting a resolution for the next legislative session that, if passed, will send the question of whether or not Article II, Section 5 of the state constitution should be repealed.
“If the citizens will be faced with further decisions interpreting this section of the constitution in this manner, it is wildly inappropriate the judiciary or even the legislature makes those types of decisions for them. That power should rest with the people and their voice should be heard and they should be the final arbiter of this matter. I plan on filing legislation that gives them the opportunity to have their voice heard.”
Rep. Tom Newell, chairman of the House Government Oversight & Accountability Committee, said he believes action must be taken to remove the language cited in the decision.
“After this decision, it is clear to me and many lawmakers that this part of the state constitution needs to go,” said Newell, R-Seminole. “This provision of the state constitution is in conflict with the beliefs Oklahomans hold so dear. This monument does not violate federal law in any way, shape or form, as the Van Orden decision clearly states. That must be made clear: this is not a decision from the federal level. It is a decision from Oklahoma’s state Supreme Court and this decision goes against the U.S. Supreme Court. We need to change this section of state code, plain and simple.”
Rep. Randy Grau, an attorney and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who has represented clients before the Supreme Court, said it is important Oklahoma’s citizens are able to vote on this matter.
“Oklahomans deserve to decide this issue for themselves,” said Grau, R-Edmond. “The court’s decision is legally wrong and based upon a poorly written, discriminatory provision. Placing a repeal question on the ballot will save the Ten Commandments monument and allow it to remain on state Capitol grounds if that is the will of the people. The U.S. Supreme Court already allows such monuments and this is a matter of amending state law so it does not conflict with the decision of a higher court.”
In case you most pious fellows haven’t noticed, there are roads and bridges out there that need to be fixed NOW!
Leave the religious stuff up to the pastors, priests, and rabbis. The Ten Commandments will not fix a pot hole or move a boulder off of I-35.
Just do the job you were elected to do!
Do not let your antipathy to the result run away with your powers of discernment! Art. II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution is archaic and discriminatory, but it is NOT poorly written. If it were poorly written, a good lawyer could find a way around it. It is well written in terms of achieving its purpose, and that is why the Supreme Court held the way it did. I don’t blame the court for following the law. But I join other school choice advocates in enthusiastically supporting the idea that that this section of the Constitution should be repealed.
Finally, some Republicans are proposing sensible solutions addressing the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling on the 10 Commandments monument. If we don’t like the ruling, then change the constitution! It’s not the 7 Justices’ fault that our State’s Constitution contains a very specific prohibition on use of public land for religious purposes. In fact, the 7 Justices in the majority were doing exactly what conservatives want judges to do – interpret the constitution strictly, literally. Kudos to Jon Echols, Randy Grau and Tom Newell!!!