But I just did a quick search through the entire text, from Preamble to Amendment XXVII. And you know what? “God” does not appear once in it. Only in Amendment I is religion made reference to, and then only to forbid Congress from messing with it.
So off the top of my head, I’d say it does just what you want.
The Pledge of Allegiance and the Declaration of Independence, of course, do make reference to God. But they are not the supreme law of the land, just parts of the United States Code. If you have a problem with the wording, they can be changed.
While I agree in general with that I don’t think you can say such things are victimless. E.g. A woman gets hooked on heroin, turns to prostitution to support her habit and over the course of her ‘career’ get AIDS and infects 20 other people with the disease.
Obviously that’s a debate for another thread but I’m just pointing out it isn’t so easy and probably doesn’t belong in the Constitution.
One Cell, his name is Polycarp, not Polycrap. I don’t know now whether you intended a backhanded gesture or what. Please state plainly exactly what problem it is that you have with people of faith.
I’m glad somebody else noticed. Technically, Article VI, paragraph 3 includes the “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust” clause. So there are two references to religion in the U.S. Constitution, both exclusionary, and no references to any sort of God. Consider it done, One Cell.
I am sorry. The misspelling of Polycarp was merely a type-o.
As to what problems, if any, I have with people of faith, please – no hijacking of this thread. That would be subject of a different thread that I would gladly participate, if you start one.
Back to this thread. As Polycarp said, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Declaration of Independence do make references to God.
Would you have any objection if a bill is introduced to remove the references. If you object, please explain your vision of democracy with regard to this issue.
Um, why would you want to revise the Declaration of Independence? It’s an historical document. We declared independence from Great Britain, and that was how we announced it 225 years ago. It’s not like it determines any of our laws today.
To offset the probability of the potential imbalance of a presidential line-item veto, how about making an amendment to prohibit the discussion of and the proposal to add riders irrelevant to the bill in question. Only exemptions and loopholes are OK to amend to a bill. The congressman will have to justify its inclusion or else it is required to be rejected out of hand.
Whack-a-Mole, like you, I don’t wish to hijack this thread any further. But I disagree with your rationale as to why prostitution isn’t a victimless crime.
Polycarp you can place me firmly in the group that hates the electoral college in its present form. There might be some acceptable forms of representative voting that’s works well, but for my money it’s all about the popular vote.
Eliminate all federal jurisdiction, except for the enforcement of federal criminal statutes. No causes of action will be eliminated; any causes of action created by Congress can be brought in state court. The world will be a far better place. Ok, maybe just the US will be a far better place.
My favorite amendment ever is one in which all persons are prohibited from government service of any kind if they are found guilty of any misdemeanor which could carry a fine over $x and/or y time in jail.
That should clean up our legal system quick enough. Course we could grandfather the existing government in…
I mean, hey, the government isn’t my mommy. “Do as I say and not as I do” isn’t good enough for me with respect to them.
I suppose I wouldn’t have any objections but what’s the point? Too many people think the Declaration of Independence is a legal document. As far as our curent legal system is concerned the Declaration of Independence is meaningless.
It’s really no more than a nifty historical document. There’d be no use in removing “God” from that document.
I’m intrigued…you think there’s another worthwhile thread in this?
heck, knock yourself out, Mole, but I’m too tired to participate constructively tonight.
Erislover…
BWAH HA HA HAHHHHAAAA!!!
oh, you were serious. Well, that’s an, um, interesting suggestion. But, um, see, even if we assume 10% of the population works in government jobs (which is a gross underestimate), that’s 30 million people. 30 million background checks. Lots and lots and lots (and lots) of layoffs.
Or if we grandfather them in, there will be lots of vacancies pretty darn soon.
My vision of democracy? Well, my vision of democracy is the massive gang rape of rights given to people by God or nature.
Regarding the pledge to the rah-rah rag, do you mean to say that there is such a thing in some offical capacity? If so, I say don’t just remove deity references; remove the whole thing.
Technically, the Declaration, contrary to most books on law, is in fact law: Chapter 1 of the United States Code. However, its sole effect as such is to prevent any government regulation from violating the principles it sets forth, since no administrative regulation can contravene statute law. (Bricker? You around? Check me on this, please.)
I’m curious about why Rmat felt that the re-enfrancizing of felons who have served their sentences was a partisan (Democratic) ploy. Offhand, I’d say that most felons who have served their time and who would be interested in voting, would be inclined to vote Republican. These would in general have committed “white-collar crime.” It would, IMHO, be rare for a convicted burglar, rapist, etc., to seek the franchise.
Well, my vision of democracy is the massive gang rape of rights given to people by God or nature.