> I read in several papers today that U.S. District Judge William Downes
> blocked a ban by the National Park Service against commercial-guided
> climbing groups at Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming.
> According to the judge, this ban amounted to "unconstitutional
> government support of religion" in violation of the First Amendment.
> Many tribes consider this area sacred.
>
> A couple of days ago, I downloaded the Executive Order signed by
> President Bill Clinton regarding Indian Sacred Sites that says:
>
> "Section 1. Accommodation of Sacred Sites. (a) In managing Federal
> lands, each executive branch agency with statutory or administrative
> responsibility for the management of Federal lands shall, to the extent
> practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential
> agency functions, (1) accommodate access to and ceremonial use of
> Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and (2) avoid
> adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Where
> appropriate, agencies shall maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites."
>
> Now I am confused. Can someone out there who understands and can
> explain in layman's terms how a Federal judge can rule directly against a
> Federal Executive Order? What is the relationship of an EO to the First
> Amendment? Is my perception of this totally mixed up?
I haven't read the Judge's order or opinion, but I can answer in the
abstract. In our three-branch government, the principle of "checks and
balances" allows each branch to "interfere" with the other, to some
extent. In this case, it appears that the court is using its powers to
declare that an act of the executive branch (the President) is
unconstitutional. Without reference to the particular situation, I can
tell you that in the abstract, this is an entirely appropriate thing for
a court to do. Similarly, a federal court just declared (preliminarily)
that Congress's attempt to censor the Internet is unconstitutional. It
is the duty of the courts to scrutinize the other two branches and keep
them in line. Whether or not this particular judicial action is "right"
is another question.
Tony Cohen