first let me say that a lawyer, particularly a constitutional lawyer, would say that Senator Packwood has made a real contribution and that the Helms amendment, as modified, is not as pernicious as its original form because of the adding of the words ``constitutionally protected.'' However, I am concerned about the effect of this amendment, not on constitutional lawyers, but on real-world school board members and real-world school administrators. I think that even as modified, what this amendment says is, if you are on a local school board, you better watch out. If you are on a local school board, you better watch out because the Feds are after you. If you are on a local school board and you make a mistake of law, we are going to come and get you and we are going to take your money away from you. I do not think in some of our smaller school districts and some of our poorer school districts the constitutional lawyers are going to be consulted. I believe there is going to be some vague threat that, if you do not have school prayer, you are going to lose your money. Therefore, I think this is still a bad amendment.
John Danforth: “first let me say that a lawyer, particularly a constitutional lawyer, would say that Senator Packwood has made a real…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses concerns about the Helms amendment's impact on local school boards.
Share
More from John Danforth
the purpose of this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is to retain Congress' role in evaluating the budget request of the Department of Energy, as it relates to the Department's Kansas City plant, before the budget request is implemented. The…
My concern is that in imposing a freeze, the Secretary be extremely cognizant of the consequences to the bond market. I would not want to see an airport's bond ratings impaired as a result of a freeze.
first, I do believe that some explanation is in order for what happened in the Commerce Committee, because repeatedly it has been said that this was a unanimous vote in the Commerce Committee that it was approved in the Commerce Committee…
I think that Clarence Thomas' view of judicial restraint is that judges should not be imposing their own philosophical views on the country from the bench.





