Most of the bills I have covered so far on Congress Watch have been easy-to-follow, single-issue bills with short text that use comprehensible language. Unfortunately, not all bills follow this form. A surprisingly large portion of our nation's policies are passed as tiny clauses in much larger "omnibus" bills. When reporting on these omnibus bills, the media tend to gloss over the small subsidiary clauses and instead describe the overall thrust of the bill in general terms.
One current example of an omnibus bill with an interesting hidden clause is H.R. 1, submitted to the House of Representatives by George W. Bush. H.R. 1, entitled the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001", has been described by major media outlets in general terms for its desire to "tighten standards" or "increase testing." But there's much more to the bill than that.
One hidden clause that may be of interest to you is found in Title II, Part B, Section 2101. Entitled "Teacher Immunity," the text of this clause simply reads as follows:
"(a) IMMUNITY- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no school board member of, or teacher or administrator in, a local educational agency that receives funds under this Act shall be liable for monetary damages in his or her personal capacity for an action that was taken in carrying out his or her official duties and intended to maintain school discipline, so long as that action was not prohibited under State or local law and did not constitute reckless or criminal misconduct.
(b) LIMITATION- The immunity established under subsection (a) shall apply only to liability arising under Federal law."
So what does that mean? Well, at first glance it seems to imply that school employees who use physical force (also known as "corporal punishment") as part of their disciplinary routine can't be sued for their action if it was legal at the state or local level.
But wait! There's more to this clause than first meets the eye. It's important to remember that school employees already can't be sued in courts of local jurisdiction for using corporal punishment if it is condoned in the law of that locality. So isn't this law simply being redundant?
This question is answered by part b ("Limitation"), which specifies that the clause only applies to lawsuits brought under federal law. So what the clause really does is to prevent individuals who have been subjected to corporal punishment in a school from claiming in the federal courts that corporal punishment is a violation of federal law. Now, why would someone bring such a suit? Perhaps the desire for monetary compensation might drive such an action. But another reason for bringing a federal lawsuit is to challenge the constitutionality of a practice. The impact of this clause, therefore, is to prevent people who live in states and localities that practice corporal punishment from trying to overturn those laws in federal court. Such an effort reflects the emphasis of George W. Bush on "tort reform" that reduces the citizen's legal right to sue.
Go To Page: 1 2
