How can Bush get away with breaking amendments?

I know it’s a political can of worms, but I’m astounded.
How can GWB get away with breaking amendments like the separation of church and state?
Isn’t that one of the main things this country was founded upon?
Why does he (or any president) find it so easy to bypass without so much as a peep from the rest of the government or even American citizens? I speak here of the example of GWB handing out money (OUR tax dollars) to churches.
What gives?

Why do I think this is destined for Great Debates?

In any case, welcome aboard beajerry, but do check out where a thread should be located before starting it.

[Nute Gunray]You assume too much.[/Nute Gunray]

Well, if it bugs you so much, write your congressman to complain and don’t vote for Bush in 2004.

Although as I understand it, federal appropriations are actually the purview of Congress, not the President. The Prez can promote a spending bill (or try to block one by implying he’ll veto) but it’s the legislature that controls the pursestrings.

If you know of an executive decision to give federal money to a religious organization, give us a cite so we can read about it ourselves.

If you are referring to the most recent executive order, I started a thread in great debates yesterday:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=149886

How can he? The same way other presidents in the past have: Slowly, deliberately, and with great patience. I’d just love to see a list of rights today compared to a list of rights 50 years from now. In time we will lose them all.

And which amendment to you propose he is violating, exactly?

He does it when nobody’s looking and he’s never been caught yet. But we know it’s him and we’ll catch him sooner or later. I intend to stay up all night to see if I can catch him.

He can do anything the country lets him get away with. Nothing is unconstitutional until it’s been challenged and a court has ruled that it is.

Amendment 14

At night, when he thinks no one is watching, he questions the validity of the public debt.

Well, the President is only partially responsible, since congress actually passed it and all, but the PATRIOT act did a number on the 4th Amendment.

My guess is that the OP might be referring to the order granting exceptions to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, allowing religious businesses to hire only people who share their beliefs (no cite, I only heard part of the report on the radio last night).

The GQ response is: in general, the President cannot get away with “breaking” Constitutional amendments. An executive order or action that transgresses Constitutional boundries may be challenged and overturned by the federal courts.

  • Rick

He didn’t exactly break the 4th ammendment. To do that, he’d have to do something like get his orders from the pope. He just bent it a little. :smiley:

Separation of Church and State isn’t found anywhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any of the amendments.

And I think this belongs more in Great Debates.

Now that’s the post I needed to start my weekend - LOL.

By the way, did I answer you on another message board regarding a certain esmhousecall?

Regards,
Shodan

The words “separation of church and state” aren’t found in The Constitution, but most people understand that to mean the Establishment Clause. Exactly what the Establishment clause requires, now, that’s the great debate.

Another reason, for the OP: standing. Somebody has to be able to sue in federal court to get the President’s action declared unconstitutional, and that person has to have “standing”; they must be able to show that they have been harmed by the unconstitutional act in a particular rather than a general way. For a taxpayer, this can be difficult, although it does happen (see Flast v. Cohen).

No doubt this thread should end up in GD, but as long as we’re in GQ, let me point out that while the phrase ‘Separation of Church and State’ is, as you say, not to be found in the Constitution, the Amendments or the Declaration, many would argue that the principle is embodied in the First Amendment clause ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.’ At any rate, this seems to be the interpretation followed in most if not all modern Supreme Court rulings so far.

Seperation or church and state is a slogan - I can find no such words in the amendments. The 1st Amendment said Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment …

Note it says Congress, not President, Note it says Law, The Pres Does Not make law.

It seems that the 1st amendment was to limit Congress only. The 2nd OTOH seems all sweeping - The Right of the People… Shall not be infringed.

Forget slogans/interpertations - go to the actual document then comapre it to such slogans as seperation of church and state and the right to privacy.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. The President has no authority to act absent congressional authority, except maybe when using those powers “inherent in his office”. Nothing that Congress is forbidden from doing by the Establishment Clause is inherently within the power of the President.

And yes, the words separation of church and state don’t appear in the Constitution. The argument is that separation of church and state is what the Establishment Clause requires. Maybe it’s a good argument, maybe it’s a bad one, but there you go. I don’t want to hijack this thread, but the topic is almost unavoidably hijackable. There’s a thread on original intent and interpretivism in GD.

Why not seek some guidance from those who set up the framework …

– Father of the Constitution and principal author of the First Amendment James Madison’s summary of the First Amendment (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

– James Madison in a letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819

– Detached Memoranda, circa 1820

– James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

– Thomas Jefferson, January 1, 1802, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

Source: http://www.loc.gov/

Note: The bracketed section { } in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion, though it was not actually deleted in his draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon Jefferson’s knowledge that his letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, he deleted the block, he says in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.

Getting back tp the OP, Bush can do whatever he likes, unless and until Congress and/or the Courts overturn his decisions.