TESTIMONY OF DR. BOB JONES, JR. ON S. 2568 "THE CIVIL RIGHts Act of 1984" BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JUNE 26, 1984 Mr. Chairman, and other members of the Committee, I consider it an honor and privilege for me to attend this public hearing and express a conservative point of view on S. 2568. The members of this Committee well know what the intent, purpose, and scope of this legislation is; so I will not bore the Committee with a layman's explanation of the Bill. Although I am Chancellor of Bob Jones University and Chairman of the Board and served as President of the University for some twenty-four years, I come to you today in my role as a Minister of the Gospel for more than fifty years and one who has traveled in almost every state of the Union during the past two years. I come to you as one who has spent time with what the news commentators have referred to as the "silent majority." The conservative working class of America is, I think, the backbone of our great nation. The average American citizen is frustrated because he finds his life regulated by a central government made up primarily of unnamed, faceless bureaucrats. Federal regulation has grown to such an extent that many citizens find their lives regulated from the cradle to the grave and, yes, now we even regulate people beyond the grave with the newly adopted regulations governing the financing of burial services. Fifteen, ten, or even five years ago, some would have said that this kind of pervasive regulation of essentially local interests was not warranted and would not be possible in a free country, and yet, we see Congress enacting even more new regulatory laws each year. I want to limit my comments to two basic points. First, I find an almost cavalier attitude in the Congress and in the Federal Bureaucracy toward the protection of religious freedom in this nation; and second, my layman's understanding of the concept of enumerated powers in the Federal Constitution suggests to me, and I hope suggests to this body, that there is a limit to government's ability to right imagined wrongs; i.e. the end of regulation, though it be laudable, does not justify any means to accomplish that laudable goal. Not a week goes by without my receiving correspondence or telephone calls from a religious or other conservative organization which is being harassed by IRS or some other Federal bureaucracy. Religious persecution by bureaucracies, particularly by the IRS and various State Departments of Education which scorn the existence of Christian schools, is sweeping America. If this trend continues, freedom of religion as we have known it in this Country will not survive; and I predict that this nation will not survive if we ever get to the point where religious minorities are persecuted in the name of liberty or justice for other groups. When the Supreme Court ruled in the Bob Jones University case that Constitutionally-guaranteed religious freedom was not as important as public policy, the justices violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution; but very few Congressmen and Senators demonstrated any interest in passing legislation to protect religious freedom. The "Liberals," however, looked upon the Grove City decision as a blow to Civil Rights and immediately reacted by introducing the Civil Rights Act of 1984 to further infringe upon religious freedoms. So-called "civil rights," as presently promoted by the "Liberals," involve denial of individual rights and personal freedoms and is in direct violation of the Constitutional guarantees of liberty. The taxation of churches and other religious institutions, simply because some of their religious beliefs do not conform to nebulous public policy established by bureaucrats, is a dangerous precedent; it is the kind of power which is subject to abuse and is tantamount to the government's establishing a preferred religion. I submit to you that this whole area of government-regulation of religious beliefs which are not, in fact, criminal should be reviewed by this august body. I do not think such regulation is in the overall best interests of our society, and I believe it is blatantly unconstitutional and Soviet-like in its practice. I would like to see the Senate go on record with legislation which clearly affirms the precedential nature of First Amendment Rights over considerations of Federal public policy. Of course, I am familiar with the doctrine of "compelling State interest," but that phrase is just three words which have varied meanings, depending upon the philosophy of the individual justices or judges. Of course, it has a negative connotation toward conservative organizations when our law is so much based on sociological law rather than logic and the permanency of the Constitution of the United States. Before I discuss my specific concern about S. 2568, let me just I raise one other question for your consideration. Why is it that the IRS is so eager to harass, intimidate, and persecute churches and other conservative organizations with their detailed questioning, with their foot-dragging on approval of tax-exempt status and with their barrage of forms aimed at supervising the activities of conservative organizations? And yet, why is it also that they fail to check or even monitor blatant violations of law by liberal organizations? Let me just cite one recent example. According to the news media, both the National Education Association and the National Organization for Women publicly endorsed one of the Democrat candidates for President. Of course, I am no attorney, but it is my understanding that there are specific regulations adopted by the IRS that prohibit this kind of political activity by any tax-exempt organization. Why does the IRS not enforce those laws and move to remove the taxexempt status of these two very "liberal" organizations? My second major point is that S. 2568 should be reviewed in light of the doctrine that the power of the Federal Government to regulate and control private institutions and small businesses is restricted by the enumerated powers in the United States Constitution. I have reviewed the language of S. 2568, and I have read a number of commentaries on the Bill. From my perspective as one who has traveled the length and breadth of this country, I find a ground-swell of opposition to any expansion of power in the federal bureaucracy which would authorize the Federal Government to arbitrarily regulate and control private institutions and even local units of government simply because they had been an indirect recipient of some federal dollars under such broadly-worded authority as is contained in S. 2568. Let me begin with my premise. I had a lawyer friend review the most recent Civil Rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Fire Fighters Local Union Number 1784, vs. Stotts, et al., decided June 12, 1984. My attorney friend, who has been involved in Civil Rights cases in Federal Court, tells me that this decision stands squarely for the principle that there is a limit to the remedies that can be fashioned in the name of Civil Rights under existing law. He also said that there is a limit to what can be done in the name of Civil Rights under the United States Constitution. It is my understanding that most of the logic for the modern Civil Rights law comes from a single paragraph in McCullough vs. Maryland, decided in 1819, in which the Supreme Court stated the principle that Congress could adopt any reasonable legislation to enforce the enumerated powers set forth in the United States Constitution. spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional The point I wish to make, and which I hope the Senate will consider very seriously as it reviews and deliberates on this legislation, is that under the American system of government, a laudable end does not justify any means. I think it is unfortunate that the limits of the Supreme Court's approval of legislative authority in Congress stated in McCullough vs. Maryland has been forgotten. No legislation can be adopted in the name of any provision of the Constitution that is inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution. I am afraid we have gotten into what one French philosopher described as legal plunder, the taking of one man's rights so that they can be given to another. We have forsaken our heritage, we have destroyed our Constitution, and we have chartered a course of self-destruction because we have abandoned the principle of making sure the means is just as laudable as the end. Let me return to the specific finding of the Supreme Court in Fire Fighters vs. Stotts. After reviewing a lower Court decree which had mandated affirmative action discrimination contrary to a union contract, the Supreme Court described the limits of Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 as follows: "Our ruling in Teamsters that a In noting the pertinent discussion in the Senate by the floor |