Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525800
label
Lotus Club, Grand Rapids, October 18, 1963
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525800
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Lotus Club, Grand Rapids, October 18, 1963
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Supreme Court of the United States. 2/2/1790-
Constitutions
Prayer in the public schools
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525800
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1963-10-31
month
10
year
1963
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1963-10-01
month
10
year
1963
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
c352e411a5adcb33
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D16, folder "Lotus Club, Grand Rapids,
October 18, 1963" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at
the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Lotus club 10-18-63
An examination of our files on legislative items indicates
that we have had more mail on the Supreme Court's decision relative
to the use of Bible reading and prayer in schools than on any other
subject.
You will remember that last June the Supreme Court ruled
in an 8-1 decision that the states could not require the use of the
Bible and the Lord's Prayer in the opening sessions of the public
schools. This was done although the Bible was to be read without
comment and, in the case of Pennsylvania, Protestant and Catholic
versions as well as the Jewish Holy Scriptures has been used.
In beth Maryland and Pennsylvania where the cases originated
partéijestéon by students was voluntary and the parents involved
had not availed themselves of the opportunity to have their children
excused from the opening exercises. Neither had these parents proved
that being excused from the exercises would have infured their
children in any way. Yet the Court struck down the state laws as
unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Digitized from Box D16 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
2
I think it is interesting to note that one Justice
consumed 77 pages to tell why he concurred in the 23-page
controlling opinion of the Court. Justice Potter Stewart, who was
born in Michigan, was at Yale Law School about the same time I was,
and who served on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which includes
Michigan, wrote a dissenting opinion.
I was deeply impressed with his opinion which seend to
me to be eminently sound, recognizedg the need for the broad view
if our children are to have the most comprehensive educational
experience.
I want to quote a few sentences from Justice Stewart's
opinion which seem to me to highlight what he had to say, For
instance, he quoted a previous Supreme Court decision to the effect
that "State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions
than it is to favor them." Be went on to point out "That the central
value embodied in the First Amendment--and, more particularly, in
the guarantee of 'liberty' contained in the Fourteenth--is the
safeguarding of an individual's right to free exercise of his religion
FORD & LIBRARY
has been consistently recognised."
3
Justice Stewart then went on to say, "It might also be
argued that parents who want their children exposed to religious
influences can adequately fulfill that wish off school property
and outside school time. with all its surface persuasiveness,
however, this argument seriously misconceives the basic
constitutional justification for permitting the exercises at
issue in these cases. For a compulaory state educational
system so structures a child's life that if religious exercises are
held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is
placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage. Viewed
in this light, permission of such exercises for those who want them
is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter
of religion. And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is
seen, not as the realisation of state neutrality, but rather as the
establishment of a religion of secularism, or at the least, as
government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious
exercises should be conducted only in private."
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
As he concluded his opinion, Justice Stewart pointed out
what the Constitution protects and indicated his faith in the various
local school boards to meet the problem of coercion in a constructive
manner. He said, "What our Constitution indispensably protects is
the freedom of each of us, be he Jew or Agnostic, Christian or
Atheist, Buddhist or Freethinker, to believe or disbelieve, to
worship or not worship, to pray or keep silent, according to his
own conscience, uncoerced and unrestrained by government.
It is conceivable that these school boards, or even all school
boards, might eventually find it impossible to administer a
system of rel igious exercises during school hours in such a way as
to meet this constitutional standard--in such a way as completely
to free from any kind of official coercion those who do not
affirmatively want to participate. But I think we must not assume
that school boards so lack the qualities of inventiveness and good
will as to make impossible the achievement of that goal."
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken it will take a
Constitut ional amendment to alter the law as interpreted by the Court.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
5
Upwards of 50 resolutions have been introduced in the House of
Representatives calling for the submission of a constitutional
amendment to the states. All the resolutions have been referred
to the House Committee on the Judiciary which to date has taken no
action on them.
Personally I believe the committee should report one of
the resolutions to the floor of the House, and I believe the Congress
should approve such a resolution and submit it to the states for
ratification. I take this position becamed I think that the
dissenting opinion of Justice Potter Stewart was the more accurate
interpretation of the Constitution.
I have written the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
urging and have taken a second step which I believe
I have done only twice in 15 years in Congress, and that is to sign
a discharge petition to bring the resolution to the floor of the
House if the committee does not act.
I believe that this issue is of sufficient importance to
bypass the committee if it refuses to act. To date 93 members of
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD