High court could hear Commandments case

October 10, 2004

Amid numerous legal disputes over public display of the Ten Commandments, the U.S. Supreme Court could agree to review a Kentucky case as early as Monday.

The high court has not addressed the issue since 1980, and with five similar cases pending, a decision will prove to be crucial to the constitutionality of the displays, says Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, the civil-liberties defense organization representing three Kentucky counties in the action.

“Lower courts are hopelessly confused over the constitutionality of governmental displays of the Ten Commandments,” Staver said in a statement.

Staver argues the Ten Commandments belong in a display of historical documents important to the foundation of the United States.

“American history would be incomplete without reference or acknowledgement of the significant role religion, including the Ten Commandments, has played in our founding, history and legal jurisprudence,” he said. “Those who seek to remove the Ten Commandments from public display are engaging in the worst kind of historical revisionism.”

As WorldNetDaily reported last December, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling that said the three Kentucky counties could not display the Ten Commandments in public buildings, even when the Decalogue is accompanied by other historical documents.

The case involves two courthouses in Pulaski and McCreary counties – which displayed the Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and other historical documents – and Harlan County, where the school board created a similar display. The Harlan exhibit includes a limited public forum where the community can post additional historical documents.

The displays began with the Ten Commandments alone. They later were changed to include some historical documents with excerpted religious quotes. The displays then were altered to include other historical documents in their entirety.

Because the displays originated with only the religious document, however, Judges Eric Clay and Julia Smith Gibbons agreed they were unconstitutional. They contend the original religious purpose was not altered by later adding historical documents.

Senior Judge James Ryan dissented, Liberty Counsel said, stating court precedent established that displays could be altered to include a broader education purpose even if the original purpose was solely religious. He also argued the displays were constitutional, and he criticized the court for not taking seriously the school exhibit, which allows the community to post any historical document.

Currently, four federal circuit courts and one state Supreme Court hold that displays of Ten Commandments are constitutional, while three federal circuit courts have ruled them unconstitutional.