B
BobCatholic
Guest
I had no idea that the government could require the registration of constitutional rights.
Oh wait, just those that annoy the government
- Status
Oh wait, just those that annoy the government
T
tm30
Guest
If there were actual “lobbying” going on, you would have a point. But there is no “lobbying” going on, so why are they pushing for this law? Have to read between the lines with things like this. It’s a stepping stone to other sought-after incursions.Please.
He was saying, “the church has the right to assemble and the state has the right to regulate it [the lobbying]. He said the church can’t have it both ways.”
Read in context, it’s absolutely clear that the current discussion is about the right to assemble, petition the government, and speak to legislators – i.e., lobby. You can disagree about whether a lobbying license was needed (and you can challenge the original bill that they were complaining about), but let’s not read into this what clearly is not there.
He’s making a classic First Amendment argument: if all lobbyists have to register, then Catholic lobbyists have to register. Otherwise, you’re discriminating in favor of religion.
I’m not saying I agree that this action required registration, but don’t set up hysterical strawmen; it weakens the debate.
If I call my representative and voice my opinion, am I a lobbyist? Do I have to register? If I’m Catholic, does that mean I’m doing the bidding of the Church?
This has nothing to do with “lobbying” per se. This law will likely not have any power over anything the Church and we Catholics do. This is about making incremental grabs at dictatorial power over faith-motivated positions against gov’t policy. They’ve already cowed us into silence from the pulpit. This is designed to frighten bishops and priests away from telling their flocks to be politically vocal and demonstrative.
It’s not going to work.
C
Corki
Guest
Exactly!!! Citizens who “march on city hall” are not lobbyists by any current definition. A lobbyist is usually a paid employee of a PAC and I have no problem with full disclosure even if it means badges for those people.
What do you want to be that any of the gay rights groups who stage regular protests in front of govenment buildings are not being held to this standard?
T
Tsuwano
Guest
Thanks for the background information, Beau. You’ve helped to put things into perspective as far as I’m concerned. I always appreciate your posts.
G
Godfollower
Guest
Really? You had no idea that the government could require the registration of, say, voters? You know – the single most important constitutional right there is?I had no idea that the government could require the registration of constitutional rights.
Oh wait, just those that annoy the government
G
Godfollower
Guest
Like I said above, I don’t see that this activity qualifies as lobbying. Ruthie seems to have made some good points. I was just saying that misreading the “the state has the right to regulate it” comment (which clearly meant lobbying) as meaning that the state has the right to regulate the Church opens us up to accusations of straw-man arguments – which makes the legitimate arguments weaker.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
There is no separation of voter box and state doctrine.
Try again.
There is a separation of Church and state doctrine - said regulations CT was proposing violates that, but I guess SOCAS is only one way right?
H
Holly3278
Guest
This law or proposed law sounds totally ridiculous and unconstitutional. I mean, the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or restrict the free exercise thereof. The Constitution also guarantees us the right of peaceful assembly and free speech. This law or proposed law (I’m a little confused as to which it is) seems to violate all of these Constitutional rights. And frankly, I am disgusted at just how anti-Catholic and anti-religion the state can be at times. 
R
recondelta
Guest
This whole topic has nothing to do with the regulation of religion or interfering with the free exercise thereof. It has nothing to do with lobbying as such, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government concerning grievances. It has everything to do with the fact that the Diocese of Bridgeport paid the entire cost for the buses used to bring people to the state capitol to influence legislative action. The rental cost exceeded the $2,000.00 limit in the statute and thereby triggered the registration provision. I am surprised that the diocese made this error, especially since it has a deacon who serves as a legislative liaison with the state. It would not be rocket science to arrange payment in another way.
I can’t help but wonder if all of this publicity is intended to draw attention from the diocese’s ongoing – and losing – attempts to keep certain records related to clerical abuse sealed.
I can’t help but wonder if all of this publicity is intended to draw attention from the diocese’s ongoing – and losing – attempts to keep certain records related to clerical abuse sealed.
L
LRThunder
Guest
The right to freedom of assembly and speech is not limited to $2,000.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
If the church sent a crowd to assemble and talk to legislators and write letters, that *may *be lobbying. Just protesting at the capitol is not lobbying and it would be unconstitutional to try to regulate it.
In my opinion.
In my opinion.
T
tcm22
Guest
Here’s a look at the First Amendment
I would suggest that talking to legislatures and writing letters clearly falls under the constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I don’t see anything about “just protesting” (the lowest form of political expression, frankly) or monetary limits.
P
Palm_Tree
Guest
The article says that the Catholic diocese is suing the State, not the other way around.
The article even says that the lawsuit by the Catholic diocese against the State admits that: “in a meeting with church representatives one month following the investigation letter, the ethics enforcement officer of the state OSE, Thomas K. Jones, told church representatives that the rally in Hartford and statements on the diocese website constituted a sufficient basis to file a complaint.”
In other words: the ethics enforcement officer of the state’s Office of State Ethics, Mr. Jones, sent a letter to the church “informing it that an investigation was underway to ascertain if the diocese had violated state law by failing to register as a lobbyist organization.” A month later, the state OSE’s investigation determined that the church did no wrong. Yet, the church is suing them anyway.
P
Palm_Tree
Guest
Is your driver’s license, brake tag, and license plate like a yellow star as well? Quit misunderstanding the issue and getting overly-dramatic. But yeah–although I think that’s fine that people permitted in the capital like lobbyists should have a badge identifying themselves as someone that is permitted to be the capital, that is silly to make protesters outside the capital get lobbyist badges (although there is nothing wrong with making them get a protest permit so that the police are notified of the situation so they can provide protection). But yeah, the lawsuit by the Catholic Church stands a very, very great chance of success, which is why this new is nothing to get freaked out about. Yes, people are not perfect. Wow.
G
Godfollower
Guest
It wouldn’t matter in any event. Just because you have the right to free speech, assembly, etc. doesn’t mean the government can’t regulate it. As Justice Holmes pointed out in Schenck v. United States, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” The government is allowed to establish reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on First Amendment protections.
(Normally this only comes up in free speech cases. There aren’t a lot of cases involving the right to petition the government).
I imagine that the justification given in court for this sort of law would be something along the lines of democracy being better off when those who lobby the legislators are required to register, so that the public has an idea of who is influencing legislation. Sort of a sunshine effect. But I have to admit that I’ve never looked into it.
L
LRThunder
Guest
But it’s not justified here, given that this attack on free speech and free assembly came after an attempted attack on free exercise of religion.
The government can’t attempt to restrict one constitutional liberty, and then turn around to restrict other constitutional liberties when there is a reaction to the first attack.
G
Godfollower
Guest
True . . .
. . . unless that second exercise of liberty was itself a violation of the law.
Let’s say that the Catholic Church didn’t like something pending in the legislature, and it hired a lawyer to approach every lawmaker and explain its views on why the law should not be passed. And let’s say that the lawyer in question charged $50,000 for the job.
Why shouldn’t he have to register as a lobbyist?
Now, I don’t know whether this particular activity qualified so that the Diocese had to register – mostly because I don’t know exactly what the Diocese did. But it isn’t necessarily wrong to require registration. That’s all I’m saying.
L
LRThunder
Guest
Except a law isn’t constitutional if it violates the constitution.
An unconstitutional law need not be obeyed. If Connecticut had passed the law forcibly reorganizing the parishes in Connecticut away from the authority of the bishop and pastors, would the bishop and pastors be justified in disobeying that law, especially since it would conflict with canon law?
T
tcm22
Guest
I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I’m an educated person. I’d be interested to get an objective analysis from someone with a Con Law background.
Clearly any regulation must serve some government purpose. When constitutionally protected liberties conflict with the law, then the law is what must give way. It seem, based on the facts presented here, that there really is no benefit to society or the effective function of government by having the Church “register” to express a political position. That’s an anathema to our system of government. Given the constitutional right to petition government, the requirement for lobbyists to register seems to be on shaky ground as it is.
In the popular political lexicon, the term “lobbyist” has taken on a pejorative connotation, along with “special interests.” However, they are also the mechanism through which people exercise their right to petition the government. As a matter of principle, I’m uncomfortable with government “regulating” the ability of citizens to communicate their grievances.
R
recondelta
Guest
The problem arose because the Diocese of Bridgeport paid the cost of the buses used to bring people to the state capitol. That cost exceeded $2000.00, which triggered the registration requirement. Bishop Lori indicated that there was not enought time to register
but the real question is why the payment plan wasn’t better thought out. Apparentlly the Diocese of Norwich and the Eastern Diocese at Samford (I’m not sure which rite) did not encounter the same problems and they had people there. As I mentioned earlier, I wonder if there are other factors here.
As for the constitutional requirements, based upon what has happened in other localities and states over time, I don’t see that being a cover for what went on. The only way things might work out in favor of the diocese here is if suitable questions can be raised about the legislative intent when passing this legislation. If not, it’s just more laity money down the drain
but the real question is why the payment plan wasn’t better thought out. Apparentlly the Diocese of Norwich and the Eastern Diocese at Samford (I’m not sure which rite) did not encounter the same problems and they had people there. As I mentioned earlier, I wonder if there are other factors here.
As for the constitutional requirements, based upon what has happened in other localities and states over time, I don’t see that being a cover for what went on. The only way things might work out in favor of the diocese here is if suitable questions can be raised about the legislative intent when passing this legislation. If not, it’s just more laity money down the drain
- Status