How exactly does someone compelled by full force and power of law to appear before this judge “change the channel”? File a motion to recuse? Denied. Appeal it? Denied. Appeal it again? Denied, and as if being before this fuck isn’t bad enough now he’s pissed off at you.
So, how is having a representative of the government, acting in as an official representative of government, wearing one particular religion’s laws prominently on the garment that designates him as the official representative of the government not a de facto establishment of religion?
How is having a country’s currency espousing religious belief not a de facto establishment of religion?
Ceremonial deism is no more than a legal fiction invented to get around the establishment clause.
Your defense of it shows you only adhere to “strict construction” when it suits your purposes.
In a strict interpretation of the constitution, you have a left out a key part: “Congress shall make no law…” This clearly forbids Congress from enacting a law **requiring **all judges to wear the 10 Cs on their robes. Does it, though, forbid the judicial branch members from expressing their religious beliefs on their robes? That, I think, is debateable.
I’m more or less with you on this one, although the argument goes that “God” is generic. I don’t buy that. For one, if it were generic, it would be “god” not “God”. And I assume it is Congress which decides what is on our currency. At any rate, we all know what is meant by “God”-- the Christian God (with the Jewish and/or Muslim God thrown in after that fact).
Under that logic, though, an executive order forcing every person in the federal government to wear a crucifix is permissable, because it’s not Congress making the law.
But then again, under the strict constructionist approach, any law which restricts freedom of speech is unconstitutional. There’s no mention of “clear and present danger” and whatnot. But I’ve never heard a strict constructionist argue that the first amendment protects one’s right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater - although, that is the plain meaning of the amendment.
Obviously, everyone accepts a bit of common sense interpretation. I think the common sense interpretation of the establishment clause is that if Congress can’t officially favor one religion over another, the other branches of government (and by extension) can’t either.
Of course, a balance must be struck between personal, preferably discreet, religious observances. A yamukah or a sikh turban, for instance. Or a reasonably sized crucifix pendant or something.
For the record, Chotii’s post did not make the claim that it is.
To demand that an individual maintain a belief system that is atheistic is not the same as declaring that atheism is a belief system.
Granted, Chotii’s post was bizarre and OTT on its face.
The right to privacy is not specifically granted in the constitution. Then again, nor is the right to vote. Don’t see the textualists arguing often that elections can be suspended, just as long as it isn’t done on the basis of, for example, race.
Does the constituion allow executive orders? I don’t think the founders ever envisioned the president having the powers he has today. But the wording of the establishment clause lends itself more towards an interpretation of keeping government out of religion, not expunging religion from government. I think it’s hard for Americans to imagine the concept of a state sponsored religion, although it was the rule of the day in the 18th century. We sure could use some updating of the first amendment in light of modern sensibilities about religion. Fat chance that’ll happen anytime soon, though.
I see this more along the lines of libel laws. You don’t have the right to libel another individual.
The problem is that we never resolve these issues-- or at least we never resolve many of them. How many times to do we have to go round and round about who can wear what, who can say what, and who can display what. I find the whole provess much too subjective, and would prefer that we had a stricter constitutional prohibition against mixing religion and government.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
For the record, Chotii’s post did not make the claim that it is.To demand that an individual maintain a belief system that is atheistic is not the same as declaring that atheism is a belief system.
Granted, Chotii’s post was bizarre and OTT on its face.[/QUOT
I’m not so sure. “Requiring everyone in public office to be a sworn atheist” says two things about them; that they are in public ofice and that they swear to be atheists. How do you read it to mean that “they maintain a belief system that is atheistic”? And what would be an example of such a system?
I think the argument is that a textualist reading of the First Amendment would disqualify such laws. Unless of course a textual reading won’t provide all the answers all of the time, that is.
Roe v Wade?
Um…no…Roe was decided on 9th Amendment and privacy grounds, not “right and wrong.”
Distinction without a difference (and a somewhat inaccurate summary of Roe to boot).
Unless, of course, you’d like to direct me to that portion of the 9th amendment that clearly addresses either abortion or a generalized right to privacy.
And when you’re done, share your thoughts on Griswold v. Connecticut.
Oh, oh! I know this one. Something to do with a vacation, I believe.
Bah. The right to vote is “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.” Therefore, it is a fundamental right, and strict scrutiny would apply to abridgement.
Hell, the constitution guarantees that the states will have a “republican form of government” f’rcryinoutloud. I’m pretty sure that’s a solid barrier against suspending elections.
True 'dat.
That creates an opening for an interesting hypothetical. Suppose next year, we put a referendum on the ballot, calling for a complete rewrite of the California Constitution. Let’s say it passes 99% to 1%. Let’s say that the new constitution calls for immediate elevation of Arnold Schwartzenegger as emperor of California, with the law-making body to be appointed directly by him. And let’s say that the constitution is ratified by public referendum by a margin of 99% to 1%.
Don’t go telling me this could never happen. We Californians are idiots, and you can generally sell us any bill of goods you care to package, as long as you market it properly.
Would California get kicked out of the Union?
No. But the US Supreme Court would presumably invalidate those portions of the new Constitution that were inconsistent with a republican form of government.
Yeah, I kinda figured that would be the way it’d pan out.
So how does a state change its mind about admission into the Union?
Eh, all you have to do is get the unanimous consent of the other 49 states and you’re golden.
The civil war proved that you can’t secede if the other states don’t want you to secede. But what if they’re generally happy to get rid of you all? If no one objects, who is going to stop you?
And it presumably wouldn’t take unanimous consent. A constitutional amendment declaring that California is no longer a state would do nicely. That just requires passage by the house, passage by the Senate, and ratification by 3/4s of the state houses. No one could object then.
But even more minimally, if the president and the rump congress couldn’t agree to take any action, you’d be de facto independent. If there’s no will to bring you back into the union by force, then you have a fait accompli.