Display of the Ten Commandments on government
property remains an open legal question, and a potentially costly practice best
avoided by lawmakers until more conclusive answers are provided by the U.S.
Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the S.C. House of Representatives has chosen not
to wait for those answers.
The House passed a bill last week to permit the display of the Ten
Commandments on state property, "along with other documents of historical
significance that have formed and influenced the United States' legal or
governmental system." The overwhelming margin, 97-2, appears to reflect
significant public support for this measure. It does not, however, reflect
prudent judgment by the House members who voted for it a mere two months or so
before the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a definitive ruling on the
issue.
Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, on his first weekly
television show on SCETV Thursday, lamented the House's "stampeding" with this
bill. Though the courts do currently appear to permit Ten Commandment displays
on public property "only in the context of other documents of an educational
nature," he warned that meeting that legal standard is still a murky area.
And as the experience of Charleston County shows, entering the legal arena on
the Ten Commandments issue can be expensive. County Council's attempt to post
the commandments outside its chambers ended in failure in 1999 when Circuit
Judge Markley Dennis Jr. ordered the display removed because it was
unconstitutional. The legal costs related to that futile effort totaled
approximately $45,000. Sen. McConnell fears if the House bill becomes law, it
could produce a similar result and "punish the taxpayers with high litigation
costs."
Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Charleston, and Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, the
guests on Sen. McConnell's show, echoed his well-advised caution. Sen. Campsen
said that though as a matter of principle he would favor displaying the Ten
Commandments on public property, as a matter of law he had voted against a
similar bill when he was a House member because "I couldn't figure out a way to
make it constitutional."
The nation's top court is scheduled to clarify this constitutional question
soon. Until then, the state should refrain from starting what could be a losing
-- and expensive -- legal fight.
