It’s not just that. I’ll lay dollars to donuts this case won’t be decided on ceremonial deism. It will get tossed for lack of standing or some other procedural defect. So the settled law as to ceremonial deism is not strictly relevant to a thread on this case, or at least any more relevant than the fact that successive Courts have stuck their heads far up their own asses to create this area of law, because they fear the consequences of ruling otherwise.
Simpler than that - as I said before, how can something be unconstitutional when it is plainly written in the Constitution? I will directly quote the relevant portion of Article VI here:
An oath or affirmation is required of the president - case closed.
Don’t quit your day job.
Case not understood. :rolleyes: This is about the invocation of God, not the existence of an oath of office.
Oath - a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says.
There’s a lot of wiggle room in there for you to be claiming your argument to be iron-clad. Firstly, an oath in which the president invokes the name of God or a god isn’t mandatory, despite Mirriam-Webster saying that’s *usually *how it’s done.
Secondly, not even an “oath” is required; an “affirmation” is perfectly acceptable.
That being said, I don’t see the point of the suit. It’s Obama’s choice how he handles it. He can invoke the name of The Great Gazoo if he feels like it. The “so help me God” part isn’t codified.
I didn’t say it was mandatory - I said an oath or affirmation was required and that an oath was constitutional. Considering what is there in pretty clear language it seems quite a bit of a stretch for people to claim that it isn’t - even going so far as to suggest that I should petition for a Constitutional amendment to permit the word “God” in an oath.
Given the language present, opponents of such language would be forced to change the Constitution to prevent that.
I still think Obama’s oath of office should start with the word “look.”
I think it should start with “Excuse me while I whip this out.”
We’re talking about the specific oath of office that an incoming President takes. :rolleyes:
Come on now, you’re better than this.
So are you. Words have meaning - and when the framers required an oath or affirmation they did so fully aware of what both words meant - especially since this had been an issue in English law.
Some time before this, the testimony of Quakers would routinely be disregarded because they refused to swear oaths - not only that, but they would often be jailed for concealing felonies as a result of this.
This problem led to the passage of an act permitting affirmations in 1695.
When the Framers drafted the Constitution, religious liberty was an issue - Quakers were a significant minority in the country and some founders were Quakers. So affirmations were specified in the document - but oaths were not banned. Indeed either an affirmation or oath is required for several things - as I stated before, this construction is used in the original Constitution four times.
What part of “President” … ah, screw it.
Right - the oath of office in Article II?
After it is sworn, a president may say what he wishes. The phrase in question is an addition to the oath - and since nothing is removed from the oath the oath still has constitutional standing.
Well, my thesis is made pretty clear in the OP. Are you sure you read it?
You raise a good point.
I guess I would say that the touchstone should be whther it’s reasonable for someone to attach religious significance to the practice. I may claim that the practice of alcohol consumption has religious significance, but that doesn’t mean I can mount a First Amendment challenge to DWI laws.
Are you expounding the thesis that the explicit invocation of divine assistance in matters of state has no religious significance? Because that’s fucking moronic. Given that I know you’re not a fucking moron, you are either being disingenuous or you’re allowing your religious preference to cloud your reasoning.
–Cliffy
I appreciate the …eh… vote of confidence.
Yes, I am in fact contending that an explicit invocation of divine assistance in matters of state has no genuine religious significance. It’s simply ceremonial, in the same way that an explicit request from me for an update on your general condition (“How ya doin’?”) is not remotely an invitation for you to tell me how you’re doing. Even though I just asked you how you’re doing, I really don’t want to know and don’t want you to tell me.
Then you should have no objection at all to removing it.
In fact, try to mandate it being removed and you’ll see how much religious significance it does have.