Ten Commandments monument resolution heading to Senate
A joint resolution in Frankfort that would require a monument to the Ten Commandments be returned to the state capitol in Frankfort is heading to the full Senate for consideration.
House Joint Resolution 15 would require the Historic Properties Advisory Commission to bring the Ten Commandments monument back to the capitol and place it in Monument Park. The resolution's primary sponsor is Rep. Shane Baker, a Somerset Republican.
The resolution was approved by the Senate State and Local Government committee Monday, setting it up for a vote in the Senate. The resolution has already passed the House.
The monument is currently in possession of the Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie 3423. The Eagles originally donated the monument to the state in 1971. According to the resolution, the monument was displayed at the capitol until sometime in the 1980s, when it was put in storage due to a construction project.
The monument was ordered to return to the capitol in 2000, but the joint resolution was ruled unconstitutional. However, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled similar Ten Commandments monument could be displayed at the Texas capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause, because the display was not religious, but a display of a document that played a role in the foundations of U.S. law. The Establishment Clause is more commonly known as separation of church and state.
Eric Schmidt, a professor of legal studies and political science at Kentucky Wesleyan College, said the Ten Commandments does have a place in both the formation of English law, and in the legal thinking of the early English settlers in America.
'The colonists themselves referred to Judeo-Christian law' and to the Ten Commandments in their legal thinking, Schmidt said. 'It also had a profound effect on the development of English common law, generally.'
The Ten Commandments were one document of many used to create English common law, Schmidt said. Supporters of placing the Ten Commandments at the capitol have an argument, 'especially if (they're) saying the Ten Commandments represent the tradition of law in the United States,' Schmidt said.
The monument would have be 'contextualized properly,' in a way that didn't indicate lawmakers were endorsing a religion.
'The question is, when the intent is (to display) the Ten Commandments — especially if it's going to be in isolation — (whether) it's going to meet the requirements of the Establishment Clause,' Schmidt said. The government can't display the Ten Commandments as a way 'to wink at religion,' Schmidt said.
At Monday's committee hearing, Baker was asked what the legislature would do to give other religions a place on the capitol grounds.
'This is not about religious display,' Baker said.
The committee approved sending the resolution to the full Senate on a vote of 8-1, with one member abstaining from voting.
Sen. Robby Mills, a Henderson Republican and the senate's majority caucus chair, said he agreed with returning the monument to the capitol.
'I think the Ten Commandments are a historical document,' Mills said. 'It has almost become a secular code of conduct.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Nevada GOP governor vetoes voter ID bill that he pushed for in a deal with Democrats
LAS VEGAS -- Nevada Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo unexpectedly vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have required voters in the swing state to show a photo ID at the polls — a conservative priority across the country and something that has long been on the governor's legislative wish list. The move brings a dramatic end to one of the legislative session's most surprising outcomes: A bipartisan deal that combined the requirement for voter identification with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mail ballots that Lombardo had initially vetoed. The bill came together in the final days of the session and passed mere minutes before the Democratic-controlled Legislature adjourned just after midnight on June 3. Lombardo had been expected to sign it. In his veto message, Lombardo said he 'wholeheartedly' supports voter ID laws but that he felt the bill fell short on addressing his concerns about ballots cast by mail, because such ballots could still be accepted 'solely on the basis of a signature match" under the bill. Because it 'would apply voter ID requirements unequally between in-person and mail ballot voters and fails to sufficiently guarantee ballot security, I cannot support it,' he said. The voter ID requirements in the bill mirrored a ballot initiative known as Question 7 that Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved last November. But voters would have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution. The requirement would then be in place by 2028. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo, said when he introduced the legislation that voters seemed poised to give the final approval, and that enacting a voter ID law would have given the state a head start on ensuring a smooth rollout before the next presidential election. In a scathing statement, Yeager called the governor's decision a 'breach of trust," saying that he believes Lombardo gave in to pressure around him to veto the bill, designated Assembly Bill 499. 'Lombardo was for AB499 before he was against it, encouraging all legislative Republicans to support it, which they did,' Yeager said. Voting rights groups condemned the legislation, saying it would have made it harder for some people to vote, including low-income or unhoused voters, people with disabilities and older voters. Let Nevadans Vote, which describes itself as a nonpartisan coalition, said Thursday in a statement that the governor's veto only temporarily stops what it called 'the misguided and ill-conceived implementation of voter ID in Nevada.' 'Come 2026, Question 7 will still be on the ballot," the group said while describing voter ID requirements as 'strict regimes' that 'decide who gets to exercise their constitutional right to vote and who cannot.' Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans were in favor of requirements for a photo ID at voting places, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. Voters are either required or requested to show ID when voting in person in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Lombardo on Thursday also vetoed a bill that would have allowed the swing state's nonpartisan voters to cast ballots in Republican or Democratic primary races. The bill sought to include the more than 855,000 voters registered as nonpartisans — the state's largest voting bloc — in the process of nominating major-party candidates for congressional races and statewide offices. A ballot initiative to open up primaries for all registered voters was rejected by voters last November. The sweeping measure, which also attempted to implement ranked choice voting, faced intense opposition from party leaders on both sides who said it was too broad and confusing.
an hour ago
An immigrant in Wisconsin has been released on bond after false accusation he threatened Trump
MADISON, Wis. -- A man who was falsely accused of threatening to assassinate President Donald Trump and threatened with deportation to Mexico was released Thursday from a Wisconsin jail on bond, three weeks after federal immigration agents arrested him. Ramón Morales Reyes, 54, was accused of a writing a letter threatening Trump in a social media post by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that got widespread national coverage. The post includes Morales Reyes' photo and an excerpt from the letter he purportedly wrote in English. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Reyes, who doesn't speak English well or write in the language, was framed. Morales Reyes was a victim in a violent 2023 attack where his bike was stolen. According to authorities, the alleged attacker, Demetric D. Scott, forged the letter to try to clear his case. Morales Reyes was set to be a witness in Scott's July trial for armed robbery and aggravated battery. Morales Reyes was released in the afternoon after paying the $7,500 bond that an immigration judge set on Tuesday. Speaking to WISN-TV, Morales Reyes said he and his lawyer will fight his deportation. 'I believe (the lawyer) knows the history and all of you know what happened," he said. He was later met by relatives and members of the Milwaukee-based immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, which has helped work on his case. Christine Neumann-Ortiz, the organization's executive director, said Morales Reyes was 'relieved' and 'very grateful for all of the support he's received.' Judge Carla Espinoza said at the immigration court hearing in Chicago that Morales Reyes was not a threat to the community. Morales Reyes, a married father of three U.S. citizen children, works as a dishwasher in Milwaukee. He was arrested by immigration agents last month after dropping a child off at school. He immigrated from Mexico in the 1980s and doesn't have legal permission to be in the U.S. This year, he applied for a U visa, which is for people in the country illegally who are victims of serious crimes. Getting such a visa can take years. Homeland Security issued a statement to reporters last week saying that although Morales Reyes was no longer considered a threat to Trump, federal attorneys would still pursue an immigration case. The government alleges that Morales Reyes reentered the U.S. numerous times without a visa. Morales Reyes had been held in the Dodge Detention Center in Juneau, about 70 miles (113 kilometers) north of Milwaukee. He was released after the federal government did not appeal the setting of his bond. Noem's social media post blaming Morales Reyes for an assassination attempt, which was circulated by Trump supporters, remains online.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Lean budget threatens to spark public college turf war
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At this May's meeting, after a presentation about an upcoming advertising campaign for state financial aid programs, Pedraja expressed concern that helping low-income students attend four-year schools would take money away from free community college. Advertisement 'We are very concerned that shouting from the treetops that our public four-year institutions are free for certain students based on income will further deplete very limited financial aid for the whole system,' Pedraja said. Advertisement Pedraja said that financial aid money is expected to be tight next year, and free community college is codified in statute, while the MASSGrant Plus expansion is not. 'Not to take away from the importance of marketing toward these students and making education available for all, which I do believe, we ought to be cautious about over-promising to students who are most in need of support,' Pedraja said. In a follow-up interview, Pedraja doubled down on his concern that the state is 'over-promising' by advertising free four-year college for low-income students. He again emphasized the distinction between free community college, which is codified in law, and other financial aid, which comes from a pot of money that can run out. Practically, however, this is a distinction without a difference — at least legally, if not politically. Pedraja is correct that free community college is codified in the Department of Higher Education spokesperson Nicole Giambusso confirmed that free community college and the MASSGrant Plus expansion are both subject to annual appropriations. The House and Senate budget proposals for fiscal 2026 both include money for all these programs, although the Senate's funding level is somewhat higher. State Senator Jo Comerford, Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, said lawmakers see these programs as coming from different pockets of money. 'One does not cannibalize each other,' Comerford told me. Advertisement When free community college was established, expanding aid for all low-income students was seen as key to ensuring that students who are qualified to attend a four-year university won't be channeled into community college just because it's free. After all, according to There are potential funding sources — like money collected from the surtax on income over $1 million — that could be tapped to keep both programs running. 'I don't think it should be either/or,' Bridgewater State University President Frederick Clark told me. 'I don't think the segments should be working at cross purposes. We should be leaning in to make sure funding is adequate for financial aid for all students.' It is true that in a tight budget year, lawmakers have to make choices. Policy makers should be honest in crafting their budget around what can realistically be funded. In our interview, Pedraja said he 'would love for everybody to have more access to higher education.' But the troubling implication of his statement is that if there is a Sophie's choice to be made, Massachusetts should prioritize aid for community college students, regardless of income, over low-income students at four-year schools. If the state wants to help the most students achieve their academic potential, that is the wrong approach. Instead, the guiding principle should be helping each student attend the college that's right for them. Advertisement As these financial aid programs continue, state policy makers should collect data to determine their impact. Which aid programs are boosting college enrollment and also college completion rates and postgraduation employment? Are other ways of improving college success working, like If hard choices have to be made about funding, they should be based on which programs most help students succeed. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
