Nudists Who Want Anti-Nudism Laws C
A group for those of us who want to have anti-nudism laws in our areas or states overturned or changed!
- created by DMK1984
New ideas, new approaches-let's hear them
Return to DiscussionsAnti-nudity laws have been challenged as to the right of self expression under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. That approach has not held up in the courts. I wonder if this argument has been made.
While my entire legal background consists of watching Law and Order on TV and a speeding ticket, it seems obvious that if the Decency Laws enacted in NCare based on the beliefs of any religion, they are in violation of the First Amendment.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. However, it was not until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to non-religion.
Could this be enough to get the pot stirring and law makers rethinking?
-----Original Message-----
From: Americans United [mailto:americansunited@au.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:53 PM
To: Madison Fellows
Subject: Response Report A Violation - 2009
Report A Violation - 2009
Date: Feb 17, 2010 3:53:05 PM
Arthur @@@@@
1.) survey/captions/2500
Caption
2.) Description of Violation (Please be as detailed as
possible):
Bird Island which straddles the NC/SC state line was traditionally a clothing
optional beach for many years. After hearing that North Carolina'
anti-nudity law would be enforced, there, I looked up the law in both states.
The laws are highly restrictive of simple nudity in any public area. Since there
is no public safety issue involved or even any evidence that contemporary
community standards are being supported, I can only conclude that the existing
laws were written to further religious beliefs. This, of course, would violate
the 1st amendment (US Constitution).
Regarding, contemporary community standards, polls have been taken, elsewhere,
that indicate little opposition to clothing optional beaches in designated
areas. A TV report on the Bird Island enforcement and comments may be found,
below.
https://www.wwaytv3.com/no_birthday_suits_just_bathing_suits_bird_island/04/2009
Thank you for consideration of this issue.
@@@@@@@@@
Conway, SC
Dear Mr.@@@@@,
Thank you for contacting Americans United. I apologize for the delay in
responding to your inquiry, but the snowstorm here really threw off my schedule
and this is the first opportunity that I have had to look at new complaints.
Legally speaking, I do not think we can challenge the enforcement of anti-nudity
laws on separation of church and state grounds. In order for us to claim that a
particular law violates the separation of church and state, we have to show that
its principle effect is the endorsement of religion or that it was passed for
the purpose of endorsing religion. The law doesn't have anything to do with
religion on its face, so it really doesn't have the effect of advancing a
religion. So we would be left to look at whether lawmakers' purpose in passing
the law was the advancement of religious doctrine. It is extremely difficult to
prove in court that a law like this one was passed for a religious purpose
without some kind of explicit evidence that this is the case. You would need to
find in the legislative record something like an explicit admission from the
lawmakers who wrote and passed the anti-nudity law that they did so for
religious reasons. Without this evidence, the courts will accept pretty much
any secular justification that lawmakers care to come up with --- the courts
will not assume that government officials acted with an improper purpose, you
must have proof.
If you can provide me with proof that lawmakers had a religious purpose for
crafting and passing anti-nudity statutes, I would be happy to take a look at
them. Otherwise, I'm afraid there is nothing that we can do about this.
Best,
Ian Smith
_______________________________________________
Ian Smith
Staff Attorney
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
518 C St., NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 466-3234 ext. 244
ismith@au.org
www.au.org
Please consider making a donation to AU at https://www.au.org/donate
Neither the above communication, nor any letter(s) we may write in an effort to
resolve your concern, create an attorney-client relationship. Unless and until
we enter into a formal, written retainer agreement with you, we are not acting
as your attorneys in this matter, and we retain control over whether and how to
take any action. Absent a formal attorney-client relationship with you, we
cannot guarantee the confidentiality of your communications with us, although we
always strive to maintain confidentiality and will not reveal the identity of a
complainant without that person's permission or a court order requiring us to do
so. If you would like an attorney to represent you in this matter, you are free
to obtain formal counsel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Americans United [mailto:americansunited@au.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:53 PM
To: Madison Fellows
Subject: Response Report A Violation - 2009