Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Ladies and gentleman we have a new competitor for the title of dumbest state legislator. Over the past couple years we've laughed at the antics of Gerald Allen, the drooling halfwit from Alabama who proposed to ban all books by and about gay people from that state, and Chris Buttars, a seemingly bottomless pit of idiotic legislation in Utah. But now it seems we have a new competitor, Karen Johnson of Arizona, who is proposing a state law to strip the courts of jurisdiction over establishment clause cases, which are of course a Federal matter.
Sen. Karen Johnson wants the state constitution altered to say Arizona judges have no jurisdiction to hear complaints brought by people who want to block government activities they believe are an improper religious action.Her proposal, SCR 1026, would specifically bar courts from being able to grant any injunctions or other legal relief if the question involves "the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government." And that bar would remain in place whether the action were brought against the government as a whole or any state or local official.
Karen, babe...as Hillary Clinton would say, let's chat. Let's "open a dialogue." No, better yet, why don't you just sit down and shut up and listen to me for a moment: those cases are Federal court cases. They're based on this little thing in the US Constitution, not the Arizona constitution, called the establishment clause. Johnson seems completely oblivious to this distinction:
Johnson said she is unhappy that judges in other states have ruled that the words "under God" have to come out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and that a monument of the Ten Commandments had to be removed from an Alabama courthouse."We don't want that," she said.
Johnson said she believes her measure would also bar challenges to prayer in school.
Incredible, isn't it? They elected a state senator who doesn't have the first clue about the difference between state courts and Federal courts. And she's equally clueless about church and state issues in general:
Johnson said it is not the function of the courts to decide when government officials have crossed the line between church and state. In fact, she said, there is no law separating the two."In the (federal) Constitution, what it means is that there is to be no state religion," she said.
"But we're supposed to have religion in everything -- the opportunity to have religion in everything," Johnson continued. "I want religion in government, I want my government to have a faith-based perspective."
"The courts do their own thing," Johnson said. "They're making up law out of how they feel about things. They're not following the Constitution."
Buttars and Allen, the gauntlet has been dropped. You better bring the crazy or your titles as America's dumbest state legislators are on the line.
Comments
I think we may need another category: dumbest constituents. After all, someone elects these fuckwits to legislative bodies.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 1, 2007 9:44 AM
Karen Johnson has long been known as one of Arizona's dumbest legislators. Oddly, considering that she comes from Mesa, which is heavily Mormon, she is one of the dumb legislators who got in bed with Scientology--accepting gifts, attendance at Scientology events, and sponsoring Scientology legislation against psychiatry in Arizona.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | February 1, 2007 9:52 AM
So she wants to amend the Arizona State Constitution to, effectively, eliminate the federal Supremacy Clause.
Brilliant.
In response, I'd like to propose an amendment to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act: anyone this stupid is required to come with a warning label, prominently displayed, in not less than 80-point type.
Posted by: Dan | February 1, 2007 9:59 AM
Tonight I'm going to institute a rule in my household that we don't have to pay any taxes. It should work because I trump all government.
Posted by: llDayo | February 1, 2007 10:09 AM
Az is my home state (as much as a military brat like myself can have a home state...) and they have their fair share of nutters, for sure.
Every few years, as a matter of making a point, they used to vote to 'secede' from the union. They would 'pass' some non-binding resolution or some such nonsense claiming that AZ was a free state.
Not sure if that still goes on, but it had become something of a tradition. I would dutifully make a list of all the representatives that voted for it, and make sure they didn't get my vote next time around....
The choices got pretty slim after a while.
It's still not as bad as Kansas though. :-)
Cheers.
Posted by: Fastlane | February 1, 2007 10:55 AM
It's odd that Karen Johnson seems oblivious to Article 2, Section 12 of the Arizona Constitution, which actually is something she could change through the amendment process:
The liberty of conscience secured by the provisions of this constitution shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned touching his religious belief in any court of justice to affect the weight of his testimony.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | February 1, 2007 11:33 AM
Truly stunning. If I can work out the twisted logic, I think she means that having the state run a religion is bad, but having a religion run the state is OK. If I could insert a graphic at this point it would be that inverting cube that Sadly, No! uses.
Just out of interest, what exactly are the limits for legislatures defining the jurisdiction of the courts? If Congress were to pass such a law, what would happen? Would it get struck down as unconstitutional itself?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | February 1, 2007 11:39 AM
Ginger:
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
So there are two classes of jurisdiction. Those which are Constitutionally mandated, such as "all cases affecting ambassadors" form class 1, everything else is class 2 sunject to the regulation of Congress. There is extensive scholarly debate as to whether Congress can completely rule out review on some subjects. The Bush Administration thinks that removing jurisdiction effectively creates a memory hole. I and many others beg to differ. For more info, read the Balkinization posts re Congressional reaction to Hamden.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 1, 2007 12:02 PM
The funny thing is that there is a way of arguing her case. (Let me say as emphatically as I can that I do NOT agree with it, nor do I think she has the brains to come up with this. I am merely pointing out that the case exists.)
It isn't a question of the 'supremacy clause' but of the 14th Amendment, specifically which parts of the Bill of Rights were included in the fundamental rights and liberties that were granted to citizens by it. (Previous to the Amendment, the rights of the 1st Amendment were only protected against Federal encroachment. In fact, there were states that had 'established churches' into, I believe, the 1810s.)
It is true that almost all decisions have assumed or stated that freedom of religion is among the fundamental rights, but, given some of the *ahem* rather unique interpretations coming from Justices like Scalia and Thomas, I can imagine someone arguing against this, and claiming that this remains a state matter. (Hopefully such a position would never command a majority, but imagine if Bush had had more appointments...)
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | February 1, 2007 12:04 PM
Prup-
Thomas takes the position that the establishment clause was not and cannot be incorporated; he is virtually alone in that opinion, as even Scalia does not take it. Scalia reaches a similar conclusion, generally, but he does so by applying a coercion test; any law or policy that is not actually coercive in forcing one to participate in religious exercises does not violate the establishment clause, in his view. Thus, public displays of the Ten Commandments are fine, government declarations of religious belief are fine, and so forth. This is not a ridiculous position, of course; it was the same position taken by Washington, Adams and Franklin among many others. Still, in today's diverse society I think it's a bad idea.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 1, 2007 1:22 PM
I don't recall Scalia J signing onto O'Connor J's coercion test and instead appears to take a very strong accommodationist position that anything other than outright establishment of a state religion (and only for a particular denomination of Christianity at that) is permissible.
Posted by: noself | February 1, 2007 2:13 PM
O'Connor did not favor the coercion test, she favored an endorsement test. Scalia favors a coercion test.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 1, 2007 2:17 PM
Sen. Karen Johnson is apparently a Mormon who favors laws making it harder to get divorced--though she herself has been married five times.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | February 1, 2007 3:04 PM
My apologies on behalf of the residents of my adoptive state. The only positive thing I can say is that she doesn't represent me ... beyond that, I have no excuse.
I am also able to confirm that the beliefs of some of the folks around here are definitely "interesting."
Posted by: dogmeatIB | February 1, 2007 3:28 PM