Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate said in Wednesday's decision that references to a dependence on "Almighty God" in the law that created the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security is akin to establishing a religion, which the government is prohibited from doing in the U.S. and Kentucky constitutions. Ten Kentucky residents and a national atheist group sued to have the reference stricken.And while from a legal standpoint the law really is inordinately unconstitutional, this is also a hand grenade in the back pocket of Kentucky AG Jack Conway as he is running for Jim Bunning's seat in 2010.
"It is breathtakingly unconstitutional," said Edwin Kagin, national legal director for American Atheists Inc. in Union, "and Judge Wingate goes to great detail as to why it is."
The judge wrote in the 18-page ruling: "The statute pronounces very plainly that current citizens of the Commonwealth cannot be safe, neither now, nor in the future, without the aid of Almighty God. Even assuming that most of this nation's citizens have historically depended upon God, by choice, for their protection, this does not give the General Assembly the right to force citizens to do so now."
The language in the 2006 legislation had been inserted by state Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, a pastor of Christ is King Baptist Church in Louisville.
Riner said he planned to ask Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway to seek a reconsideration of the order. Conway has 10 days to do that, and 30 days to appeal.
A spokeswoman for Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway says he has not yet decided whether to appeal.Not exactly filling me with confidence there, Jack, this case seems pretty open and shut to me. I appreciate Conway has to walk a fine line with voters here in KY, but fighting for the ability to legislate a dependence on God as an emergency preparedness tool is not going to win him any friends with Democratic primary voters.
We'll see how he responds.
1 comment:
I don't really consider it a "hand grenade." All he needs to say is that he's decided not to appeal because the chances of success seemed next to zero, and it would therefore be a waste of taxpayer dollars to appeal. No need to get into whether or not he personally agrees with the law.
Post a Comment