The Bible and the Constitution

[SOONER44EVER]

The Bible and the Constitution -- short and sweet

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on
the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay
marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested
to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs
said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a
man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office,
you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the
Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution
and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

[Octavian]

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/6988/pwned1nr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Jerk]

Cool! We'll be just like Rome in the 5th century when they became enlightened. I suppose it does take awhile for great civilizations to evolve.

[Vaevictis]

Rome went too far in one direction; on the other hand, when you start putting religion into government, you often go too far and get stuff like... what was that... oh yeah, the Taliban or Iran.

Do you really want a Christian equivalent of those things? I'm pretty sure we've had stuff like that in Western civilization... you know, the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials...

I mean, even if you ignore the truly extreme stuff, you have neat stuff in the Bible about stoning adulterers to death... and all divorces not resulting from adultery not being legal divorces, so any sex or marriages afterwards are adultery too.

How many Oklahomans do you suppose we'd have to stone to death?

(culture of life my arse)

[TexasLidig8r]

Cool! We'll be just like Rome in the 5th century when they became enlightened. I suppose it does take awhile for great civilizations to evolve.

Next come vomitoriums...

The Visigoths are at the gates.

[soonercody]

Touche'.

I find it hard to believe how many folks are threatened by gay marriage, gay civil union, gay rights, gay whatever...

[usmc-sooner]

just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you're threatened by it.

[SicEmBaylor]

Look folks,
The individual states are suppose to be the incubators of social change in this country. The people of each individual state are going to collectively have a different opinion on the social value of homosexual marriage and those values may not always translate to other states as well.

Marriage is NOT a Constitutional right nor is it a power enumerated to the Congress and the Federal government. It is a STATE matter.

And I'm personally opposed to it but I would never seek to improperly impose my will on other states using the appparatus of the Federal government.

[soonercody]

USMC, my perception is based on the type of language used by those opposed to gay marriage to define the issue.

"Defense of marriage amendment", "Gay marriage would threaten the institution of marriage", "protect the institution of marriage"...

[BillyBall]

Look folks,
The individual states are suppose to be the incubators of social change in this country. The people of each individual state are going to collectively have a different opinion on the social value of homosexual marriage and those values may not always translate to other states as well.

Marriage is NOT a Constitutional right nor is it a power enumerated to the Congress and the Federal government. It is a STATE matter.

And I'm personally opposed to it but I would never seek to improperly impose my will on other states using the appparatus of the Federal government.

Queer ;)

[soonercody]

Sic'Em,

While I agree with you fundamentally, I also think that the feds will eventually have to address it. What do married lesbians in Mass or Cali do when they file a 1040? Check "married filing jointly", "single"?

Who gets notified when one state-acknowledged same-sex spouse who is a member of the state national guard is killed in Iraq? Who is the legal next-of-kin according to the US Army?
(I have to throw in a dramatic example to rile some of the usual suspects.)

While this is, and should be, a state issue there is no way for the federal government to avoid it indefinitely.

[Rogue]

Medicinal Marijuana and physician-assisted-suicide were supposed to be states' issues too.

[Sooner_Bob]

The institution of marriage always has and always should be considered something between a man and a woman.

Whatever takes place between two men or two women shouldn't be considered the same. Let 'em do what they want, but call it something else.

It seems like all that is happening today is the group that whines the most wins . . . on any subject.

You know, when gays or lesbians march or express their desire to be heard they are said to be fighting for their rights, but when a religious group does something similar they are called fanatics and are pushing religion off on the rest of the world.

You can't have it both ways people.

[Okla-homey]

Sic'Em,

While I agree with you fundamentally, I also think that the feds will eventually have to address it. What do married lesbians in Mass or Cali do when they file a 1040? Check "married filing jointly", "single"?

Who gets notified when one state-acknowledged same-sex spouse who is a member of the state national guard is killed in Iraq?Who is the legal next-of-kin according to the US Army? I have to throw in a dramatic example to rile some of the usual suspects.

While this is, and should be, a state issue there is no way for the federal government to avoid it indefinitely.

You're correctly alluding to the equal-protection clause of the XIV amendment to the Constitution. IOW, married in Massachusetts means married in Oklahoma. Its that simple. Therefore, if folks seek to prevent civil unions of same sex couples from becoming legal anywhere on American soil, it will take either a federal statute (which the SCOTUS might strike) or a Constitutional amendment.

I personally doubt there is sufficient will to get 3/4ths of the state legislatures on the same page to ratify a Constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

Personally, I oppose the notion of gay marriage, because I don't think enabling and further "normalizing" the homosexual lifestyle is ultimately healthy for society and its counter to my religious views. OTOH, I realize people have rights under the Constitution and the individual right to join property interests with another (which is all marriage really is when you get down to it) is pretty basic, therefore I can see the writing on the wall. Its coming folks, ready or not.

The good news for the legal community is that this will result in lots of new business because a significant sector of the population which heretofore has not needed lawyers in family law matters will when the inevitable gay divorce proceedings begin.;)

[SicEmBaylor]

Sic'Em,

While I agree with you fundamentally, I also think that the feds will eventually have to address it. What do married lesbians in Mass or Cali do when they file a 1040? Check "married filing jointly", "single"?

Who gets notified when one state-acknowledged same-sex spouse who is a member of the state national guard is killed in Iraq? Who is the legal next-of-kin according to the US Army?
(I have to throw in a dramatic example to rile some of the usual suspects.)

While this is, and should be, a state issue there is no way for the federal government to avoid it indefinitely.

I agree those issues are a problem, but they solution isn't make the situation worse by more Federal action. The solution is to get the Federal government out of the business all together. You're right that as long as the Federal government addresses the issue of marriage that they will need to define marriage. However, the best solution of course is to get the Federal government out of the business of addressing marriage at all thus preventing their need for defining it.


Medicinal Marijuana and physician-assisted-suicide were supposed to be states' issues too.

You're absolutely right. I'm opposed to both but both are an issue best left up to the states. Except to the extent that the actual transfer of marijuana from one state to another can be regulated. But I take a very narrow view of that.

[Vaevictis]

Get government out of marriage and it won't be a problem.

Seriously, as far as it being a state issue is concerned, what happens when one of the more or less liberal churches decides to permit/require same sex marriage, and it becomes a religious issue?

[SicEmBaylor]

You're correctly alluding to the equal-protection clause of the XIV amendment to the Constitution. IOW, married in Massachusetts means married in Oklahoma. Its that simple. Therefore, if folks seek to prevent civil unions of same sex couples from becoming legal anywhere on American soil, it will take either a federal statute (which the SCOTUS might strike) or a Constitutional amendment.

I personally doubt there is sufficient will to get 3/4ths of the state legislatures on the same page to ratify a Constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

Personally, I oppose the notion of gay marriage, because I don't think enabling and further "nomalizing" the homosexual lifestyle is healthy for society and its counter to my religious views. OTOH, I realize people have rights under the Constitution and the individual right to join property interests with another (which is all marriage really is when you get down to it) is pretty basic, therefore I can see the writing on the wall. Its coming folks, ready or not.

The good news for the legal community is that this will result in lots of new business because a significant sector of the population which heretofore has not needed lawyers in family law matters will when the inevitable gay divorce proceedings begin.;)


You're right and this is why the 14th Amendment and the 17th Amendment need to be repealed. I consider both of them gross violations of the original intent of the Constitution not to mention the fact that the 14th Amendment was ratified through admittedly dubious means.

The Constitution is only suppose to protect individual rights from the Federal government NOT the State governments. Nor were United States Senators suppose to be elected via popular elections as if universal suffrage and widespread populism were the ultimate goal of our nation or even desirable.

The fact that federalism is dying out to such an extent that states are merely administrative districts to a strong central government is the fault of that unjust war which produced the 14th and later 17th Amendments.

[SicEmBaylor]

Get government out of marriage and it won't be a problem.

Seriously, as far as it being a state issue is concerned, what happens when one of the more or less liberal churches decides to permit/require same sex marriage, and it becomes a religious issue?

It's that church's business to be dealt with by the members and leaders of that church.

[mdklatt]

It's that church's business to be dealt with by the members and leaders of that church.

But then you have a situation where a church says a couple is married and the government bascially says, "no they're not". Isn't this blatent religious descrimination? The government needs to get out of marriage altogether.

[Rogue]

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.


When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.


This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

What's wrong with the 17th? I'm not sure how it would be preferable to have Senators appointed by state legislatures, if that is indeed the perceived possible advantage. Or is the problem that the 17th is too prescriptive in instructing states how to go about getting their 2 dudes to Washington and this prescriptiveness undermines states' autonomy?

[SicEmBaylor]

But then you have a situation where a church says a couple is married and the government bascially says, "no they're not". Isn't this blatent religious descrimination? The government needs to get out of marriage altogether.

These are two different entities both with the right to declare a marriage. The church should have the right to marry anyone they want but that doesn't necessarily mean that the state has to recognize that right. Just as if the state were to declare homosexual marriage churches shouldn't have to recognize or perform them.

[Okla-homey]

You're right and this is why the 14th Amendment and the 17th Amendment need to be repealed. I consider both of them gross violations of the original intent of the Constitution not to mention the fact that the 14th Amendment was ratified through admittedly dubious means.

The Constitution is only suppose to protect individual rights from the Federal government NOT the State governments. United States Senators suppose to be elected via popular elections as if universal suffrage and widespread populism were the ultimate goal of our nation or even desirable.

The fact that federalism is dying out to such an extent that states are merely administrative districts to a strong central government is the fault of that unjust war which produced the 14th and later 17th Amendments.

number one: the XIV is here and its not going away. GADOCADWI;)

number two: if not for the XVII amendment, most senators in southern states (incl OK) would be democrats based on democrat-controlled state legislatures. Therefore, me likey XVII amendment.

number three: I also like that electoral college thingy. Protects us from the urban rabble in populous states deciding presidential elections to the exclusion of all us hillbillies in the red states!

[SicEmBaylor]

number one: the XIV is here and its not going away. GADOCADWI;)

number two: if not for the XVII amendment, most senators in southern states (incl OK) would be democrats based on democrat-controlled state legislatures. Therefore, me likey XVII amendment.

number three: I also like that electoral college thingy. Protects us from the urban rabble in populous states deciding presidential elections to the exclusion of all us hillbillies in the red states!

1. It isn't unprecedented to repeal a Constitutional amendment.

2. I'm very well aware of that fact and the possibility that most Senators would be Democrat is irrelevent to the point of practicing proper Constitutional government in line with original intent.

3. I agree and nothing I've said has anything to do with the Electoral College. But people need to remember they have no constitutional right to vote for the President. The States legislatures have and should have the right to determine how the electors of their state are chosen. I haven't totally made up my mind if a popular state election is the best means for doing so. It probably would be if the right to vote were a bit more selective.

[Rogue]

WOW!!!

[Rogue]

You have to know that I love me some quotes...



Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates. - Gore Vidal


Democracy is supposed to give you the feeling of choice, like Painkiller X and Painkiller Y. But they're both just aspirin. -Gore Vidal


Half of the American people never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half. - Gore Vidal

[Vaevictis]

These are two different entities both with the right to declare a marriage. The church should have the right to marry anyone they want but that doesn't necessarily mean that the state has to recognize that right. Just as if the state were to declare homosexual marriage churches shouldn't have to recognize or perform them.

Ah yes, but then an argument can be made -- why are you giving preferential treatment to people of other religions by giving all of *their* married couples financial benefits? You're violating both the first and 14th amendments at this point.

Sooner or later, one of three things is going to have to happen:
1. Government gets out of the marriage game.
2. A federal constitutional amendment will happen -- either repealing the 14th and modifying the first, or banning (or permitting the banning of) homosexual marriage and removal of the full faith and credit clause for marriage purposes (at least).
3. The courts will eventually find that the government must accept marriage in basically all possible forms (homosexual, heterosexual, poligamy, etc), or that government must get out of the marriage game. There are many reasons for this under the Constitution. There are 14th amendment considerations, sooner or later there will be a 1st amendment consideration (even if the homosexuals have to invent a religion for it), and even if it doesn't get overturned federally on those two grounds, you WILL eventually have one state granting homosexual marriages and at that point, the "full faith and credit" clause kicks in, and you have an issue on *those* grounds.

It's a nasty, thorny issue, and I don't see any other options than those above.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ah yes, but then an argument can be made -- why are you giving preferential treatment to people of other religions by giving all of *their* married couples financial benefits? You're violating both the first and 14th amendments at this point.

You're missing my point. First of all, in a perfect constitutional setting the 1st Amendment wouldn't apply becuase the 14th Amendment doesn't exist. In fact, it was even questionable after the 14th Amendment was ratified if it applied constitutional protections to the states. I don't think it should and neither does Justice Scalia by the way but it would require overturning prior Supreme Court precedent which he isnt' willing to do becuase of his respect for Stare Decisis.


Sooner or later, one of three things is going to have to happen:
1. Government gets out of the marriage game.

This situation would probably be preferable via appropriate state legislation or state constitutional changes allow homosexual marriage if that's what the people of the state prefer. However, my point here is that the state reserves the right to define marriage however it wants.


2. A federal constitutional amendment will happen -- either repealing the 14th and modifying the first, or banning (or permitting the banning of) homosexual marriage and removal of the full faith and credit clause for marriage purposes (at least).

I would absolutely NOT support a Federal Constitutional ban of homosexual marriage, becuase, as I've said it's an issue that each state should be free to decide for themselves. A proposed alternative to circumvent this problem is a Constitutional amendment re-affirming the states' right to define marriage. I don't like this idea because it sets a bad precedent that EVERY state right would need a constitutional amendment. There's no need for that because the powers of the Federal government are already enumerated and all other rights reserved to the states.


3. The courts will eventually find that the government must accept marriage in basically all possible forms (homosexual, heterosexual, poligamy, etc), or that government must get out of the marriage game. There are many reasons for this under the Constitution. There are 14th amendment considerations, sooner or later there will be a 1st amendment consideration (even if the homosexuals have to invent a religion for it), and even if it doesn't get overturned federally on those two grounds, you WILL eventually have one state granting homosexual marriages and at that point, the "full faith and credit" clause kicks in, and you have an issue on *those* grounds.

I've already addressed those points. The solution there should be for the state to ban homosexual marriage via their state constitutions so that enabling legislation can't be passed legalizing it in the first place. Can the Supreme Court overturn a state constitutional amendment? Probably but they definitely shouldn't.

It's a nasty, thorny issue, and I don't see any other options than those above.[/QUOTE]

[Vaevictis]

You're missing my point. First of all, in a perfect constitutional setting the 1st Amendment wouldn't apply becuase the 14th Amendment doesn't exist.

If wishes were fishes...


In fact, it was even questionable after the 14th Amendment was ratified if it applied constitutional protections to the states.

Um. Have you read that particular amendment lately?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It explicitly states that Constitutional protections are applied to states by prohibiting the states from enjoining them.


However, my point here is that the state reserves the right to define marriage however it wants.

Only in so far as its definition does not conflict with Constitutional protections. Like I said, there are Constitutional grounds for arguing that banning homosexual marriage (or polygamy, etc) is unlawful, especially in the event that a religion starts authorizing gay marriages.

Once a religion starts authorizing them, the married gay couples can argue two things:
1. You can't outlaw OUR gay marriage because it's protected as a religious belief.
2. If you provide incentives for marriage to anyone, you must also provide it to us because of the equal protection clause. Further, you cannot claim it as a "strong interest" (which is essentially required under precedentto override the 14th), because the interest of promoting heterosexual marriage is almost certain to be overriden by the interest of not interfering with religious freedom.

(I know you want to think that it's the church's right to recognize them, but the government doesn't have to -- but the trap lies in the fact that if that's the case, the government is essentially providing economic preference to one religious belief over another, which is a big no-no.)


There's no need for that because the powers of the Federal government are already enumerated and all other rights reserved to the states.

... except in cases where they've been overriden by subsequent amendments. Keep in mind that as amendments, order of adoption matters. Subsequent amendments override anything already in the Constitution. That means the 14th overrides the 9th, for example. That means that while certain powers are reserved to the states, they pass the equal protection test... *and* any other right within the Constitution.

What's more interesting is -- if my reading of the 14th Amendment is correct -- it doesn't even have to be a right enumerated within the Constitution. It can be one simply granted by federal law.


Can the Supreme Court overturn a state constitutional amendment? Probably but they definitely shouldn't.

Per the 14th, they're required to if it violates anything in the federal constitution.

[Jerk]

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.


When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.


This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

What's wrong with the 17th? I'm not sure how it would be preferable to have Senators appointed by state legislatures, if that is indeed the perceived possible advantage. Or is the problem that the 17th is too prescriptive in instructing states how to go about getting their 2 dudes to Washington and this prescriptiveness undermines states' autonomy?

The 17th amendment ruined the balance of state and federal power. Unfunded mandates are a good example. Also, when the Feds tell a state: "you do this, or you will lose federal money." That would end. State appointed US Senators would almost certainly return much power and control back to the local level.

[SicEmBaylor]

The 17th amendment ruined the balance of state and federal power. Unfunded mandates are a good example. Also, when the Feds tell a state: "you do this, or you will lose federal money." That would end. State appointed US Senators would almost certainly return much power and control back to the local level.

Huzzah!

The Constitution created a balance not only between Federal branches of government but between state and Federal power. The two houses of Congress were suppose to reflect this balance by having one house devoted to the representatives of the people and the Senate representing the interests of the state to the Federal system. The 17th Amendment took away the State's representation to the Federal system which is just as bad as taking away the people's representatives in the House.

[Jerk]

Neal Bortz is who clued me in on this stuff. The 17th Amendment plus the SCOTUS's wild interpretation of the Commerce Clause (the one they made in the 1940's about wheat) has made state government rather pointless. I was hoping they would at least straighten out the ICC with a good ruling on the medical marijuana thing in Oregon, but it was not so. Most of my fellow conservatives were against the State of Oregon, but I think they failed to see the overall picture of a Supreme Court rubber stamping federal authority where it ought not be. If I build a machine gun, HERE in Oklahoma, with no parts crossing state lines, the feds should have no say. The State of Oklahoma should have the power to say "that is legal (or not). Likewise, a marijuana plant grown in Oregon, harvested in Oregon, consumed in Oregon, is somehow a federal matter? Give me a break.

I think we're heading down the road to a true democracy - the one where 2 wolves and 1 sheep vote on what's for dinner. Voting republican since I was 18 and it hasn't helped. Dems are an even worse alternative. I think we're screwed.

[Okla-homey]

Let me ask you a question SEB.

read Article V.

Now, having done that, you know that if 3/4ths of the states ratify a Constitutional amendment (either by popular referendum or a vote of their legislature) that makes it the supreme law of the land. What does that do to the notion that the framers believed in the primacy of "states rights."

To me at least, it shreds it.

Think about it: if in 1810 and long before the Civil War, 11 of the then 15 states had voted to ratify an amendment outlawing slavery, that would have meant that slavery in the remaining 4 would have been out. Period. No matter even if 100% of the free folks and their elected representatives in those states dug slavery.

Now sir, how can such a scheme be if the notion of "states rights" reined supreme at the Constitutional Convention? I agree, it was an important concern, but ultimately, the Constitution was created to create the world's first economic common market. Common markets evolve when the member states join and agree to concede previously held independent states rights in order to form a union in which they all benefit.

I'm generally a fan of states rights, but when it comes down to certain fundamental rights all Americans should share, states just need to pipe down, shut-up and color. That's also the great lesson of the Civil War.

[Jerk]

Well, I'll probably get neg speked for this, but I wish the south would have freed the slaves and then rebelled.

[Vaevictis]

I think we're heading down the road to a true democracy - the one where 2 wolves and 1 sheep vote on what's for dinner. Voting republican since I was 18 and it hasn't helped. Dems are an even worse alternative. I think we're screwed.

You seem to be under the illusion that the Republicans are the party that holds the banner for state rights and limited government. It hasn't been that way since the time before they started pandering to the religious right.

The real key is not to vote for any one party, but to vote for deadlock. What you want is the Supreme Court evenly split, and for one party to control the White House, and for the other party to have a just-short-of-veto-override majority in Congress. That way, they can only put forth stuff in the middle ground.

[Scott D]

Marriage is NOT a Constitutional right nor is it a power enumerated to the Congress and the Federal government. It is a STATE matter.

And I'm personally opposed to it but I would never seek to improperly impose my will on other states using the appparatus of the Federal government.

yeah, tell my tax return that. Bunch of thieving bastards up there in Washington.

[Jerk]

You seem to be under the illusion that the Republicans are the party that holds the banner for state rights and limited government. It hasn't been that way since the time before they started pandering to the religious right.

The real key is not to vote for any one party, but to vote for deadlock. What you want is the Supreme Court evenly split, and for one party to control the White House, and for the other party to have a just-short-of-veto-override majority in Congress. That way, they can't get anything done.

Fixed for you. I agree 100%

[Vaevictis]

Well, I'll probably get neg speked for this, but I wish the south would have freed the slaves and then rebelled.

It wouldn't have helped. Only one (or two?) of the states succeeded over the slavery issue. All the others followed because the Union refused to let it.

(Nevermind the fact that the Union was clearly in the right of it as far as the law is concerned -- the Constitution clearly prohibits redrawing of borders without the permission of all states involved and Congress to boot. And, well, succession is a redrawing of borders.)

[Vaevictis]

Fixed for you.

Is that really a bad thing? They can't get anything done unless they can get serious support from both sides of the aisle; as opposed to when one party controls both Congress and the White House and they can do essentially whatever they want.

[Scott D]

Well, I'll probably get neg speked for this, but I wish the south would have freed the slaves and then rebelled.

ironically Lincoln never would have gone for an issue of freeing the slaves had there been a way to preserve the nation as a whole entity without it being a hotbutton issue.

[Okla-homey]

Well, I'll probably get neg speked for this, but I wish the south would have freed the slaves and then rebelled.

Jerk,
I used to think that might have worked, but when you stop to consider the war was fundamentally about saving the union and the slavery issue was only at best of secondary relevance among the non-seceding states, the South still would have lost.

I also submit that if they had freed the slaves in 1861, the South would have had no impetus to secede.

Folks can say what they will, but after study of the period for my entire adult life, I feel quite comfortable and on firm historical footing to state that to the South, secession was to preserve their rights to own slaves. To the North, initially its wasn't about freeing slaves. To them, it was about forcing the rebellious states back into the union.

If you doubt any of the above, simply read the several state Ordinances of Secession as I have. Even a quick scan of them reveals their beef with the federal government was the fear slavery would someday be outlawed by US statute or amendment. There is some jazz in them about states rights, but the central theme of them all is about their right to preserve the institution of chattel slavery.

[Skysooner]

Even Article I is under attack right now.

Apparently the Okla. legislature just passed a bill that would establish a public trust fund to provide for legal defense for county officials who put up the 10 Commandments on government property and are sued by the ACLU. This bill was sponsored by a Republican that is currently running to be governor of Oklahoma. He says he isn't favoring Christianity (hah), but he did make it clear that no other religion will be given this protection.

It has been shown time and again that putting up such displays is against the US Constitution and if this passes, all of our tax dollars will be going to support unconstitutional behavior. I believe this is clearly against the separation of church and state.

[Okla-homey]

ironically Lincoln never would have gone for an issue of freeing the slaves had there been a way to preserve the nation as a whole entity without it being a hotbutton issue.

That's quite true Scott. In fact, Lincoln is often quoted as having stated, <paraphrasing>"If I could save the Union by freeing the slaves I would do so. If I could save the Union by keeping slavery, I would do so."

[Scott D]

That's quite true Scott. In fact, Lincoln is often quoted as having stated, <paraphrasing>"If I could save the Union by freeing the slaves I would do so. If I could save the Union by keeping slavery, I would do so."

Ah's knows some of mah histrah suh.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

http://x4.putfile.com/1/2318181283.jpg

[Okla-homey]

Even Article I is under attack right now.

Apparently the Okla. legislature just passed a bill that would establish a public trust fund to provide for legal defense for county officials who put up the 10 Commandments on government property and are sued by the ACLU. This bill was sponsored by a Republican that is currently running to be governor of Oklahoma. He says he isn't favoring Christianity (hah), but he did make it clear that no other religion will be given this protection.

It has been shown time and again that putting up such displays is against the US Constitution and if this passes, all of our tax dollars will be going to support unconstitutional behavior. I believe this is clearly against the separation of church and state.

One problem with that. Read the first clause of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."

Now sir, what that means is the states are free to do so if they wish per the First Amendment which is the only place religion is mentioned in the entire Constitution or any of its amendments. Seriously.

In fact, in 1781 when those words were penned, every state except tiny Rhode Island and Pennsylvania had a "state religion." Those states were the exception because the Baptists in RI were renegades from puritanical Massachusetts and Pennsylvania was a religious freedom refuge begun by the Quaker William Penn.

Sooo, while today its tough sledding for a state to favor a particular religion, its simply not unconstitutional.

[Vaevictis]

Sooo, while today its tough sledding for a state to favor a particular religion, its simply not unconstitutional.

I'm thinking things might get thornier when you consider how tied up with Congress all the states are today.

I think it would be a tough row to hoe, but there might be an argument to be made with respect to Congressionally funded activities within a state that is discriminating religiously. Again, I think it would be tough, but it might be possible to make the argument that by funding the state, Congress is participating in the discrimination.

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me ask you a question SEB.

read Article V.

Now, having done that, you know that if 3/4ths of the states ratify a Constitutional amendment (either by popular referendum or a vote of their legislature) that makes it the supreme law of the land. What does that do to the notion that the framers believed in the primacy of "states rights."

Because the Framer's of the Constitution didn't intend for constitutional protections to apply to the individual states. It has been interpreted that way through the years by the judiciary but that was not the originalist intent. Justice Scalia gave a GREAT talk on this point a few years ago and mentions it from time to time in his talks regarding the use of international law in Federal judicial rulings.

There are two ways to look at the Constitution. Either you believe that the Framers created it giving specific powers to the states merely as administrative districts, or you believe in the natural soverignty of the individual states. Representatives of the individual states created the Federal system and reserved to their states all non-enumerated powers. That isn't to say that every Framer believed in retaining state soverignty (in fact several at the constitutional convention proposed eliminating the states all together) but the document that was created does.



To me at least, it shreds it.

If Article V in your mind shreds all claims to state soverignty then there is NO issue outside the purview of the Federal government. If that were true whey did the Framers's specifically list the powers of Congress and reserve all non-enumerated powers to the state? What you're talking about would amount to states existing merely as administrative districts and not soverign units within the Federalist system.



Think about it: if in 1810 and long before the Civil War, 11 of the then 15 states had voted to ratify an amendment outlawing slavery, that would have meant that slavery in the remaining 4 would have been out. Period. No matter even if 100% of the free folks and their elected representatives in those states dug slavery.

But that didn't happen. It would have created a constitutional debate that didn't come until much later in this country because in 1810 the Constitution was viewed as a limit on Federal not state power. If such an amendment had been proposed it would have had to specifically include a provision applying that to the individual states. And then I believe in the natural right of a state to leave the Union in such a case.


Now sir, how can such a scheme be if the notion of "states rights" reined supreme at the Constitutional Convention? I agree, it was an important concern, but ultimately, the Constitution was created to create the world's first economic common market. Common markets evolve when the member states join and agree to concede previously held independent states rights in order to form a union in which they all benefit.

You're kind of missing the point here. Go back and read the transcripts, debates, and journals from the Constitutional convention because it's truly fascinating. Every issue at the Constitutional convention was based on a coalition of different states depending on what issue was being addressed. In fact, most of the debates centered around "Big States" v. "Small States" with some small states occasionally siding with larger states with the expectation that they would one day become large states. The point is that while not every constitutional debate was about States Rights the debates were made by coalitions of states fighting for the interest of their individual states.

Now, I will agree with you to the extent that the constitutional convention was called on economic reasons relating to debtors laws and the problems it created for interstate commerce. In fact, a prior convention relating only to this problem had been called previously in Virginia but it was a failure because under the Articles of Confederation there was no real way to impose a solution. The Constitutional Convention dealt with this issue with the interstate commerce clause but their doing so did not and does not constitute a relinquishment of all state soverignty to the Federal system.


I'm generally a fan of states rights, but when it comes down to certain fundamental rights all Americans should share, states just need to pipe down, shut-up and color. That's also the great lesson of the Civil War.

That's a rather disturbing position to take.

First, what fundamental rights are you referring to? First of all the issue of specifically protecting some fundamental rights actually never reall came up at the constitutional convention because it was assumed that because the powers of Congress were limited that there would be no way for Congress to abuse the rights of the individual citizen. However, as we know the people and the states themselves (which is very important) demanded the ratification of the BOR to limit the FEDERAL government's power to infringe upon those basic rights. Now, those basic rights and the wording of the BOR were taken and borrowed from most of the existing state constitutions which already protected those rights. There were those who disagreed with the Federal protection of individual rights because it may mean that the Federal government would be free to infringe upon all rights not listed in the first 10 amendments. I happen to think their fears were totally correct, but it doesn't change the fact that all of this deals with Federal protections not applicable to the states.

Second, it may be emotionally satisfing to say the states should just pipe down and shut up so the Federal government can be free to do whatever they like whether it be to limit or expand individual rights but that isn't constitutionally correct nor is it ultimately desirable. The biggest argument against it is that the people of every state are different and therefore should be free to craft laws that best serve their beliefs and interests. While you may not be a fan of the imposition of Federal law over the states in all cases your ideas make such action possible in the first place when it shouldn't.

[SicEmBaylor]

One problem with that. Read the first clause of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."

Now sir, what that means is the states are free to do so if they wish per the First Amendment which is the only place religion is mentioned in the entire Constitution or any of its amendments. Seriously.

In fact, in 1781 when those words were penned, every state except tiny Rhode Island and Pennsylvania had a "state religion." Those states were the exception because the Baptists in RI were renegades from puritanical Massachusetts and Pennsylvania was a religious freedom refuge begun by the Quaker William Penn.

Sooo, while today its tough sledding for a state to favor a particular religion, its simply not unconstitutional.

Now for once that is entirely correct. :D

[Cam]

Folks can say what they will, but after study of the period for my entire adult life, I feel quite comfortable and on firm historical footing to state that to the South, secession was to preserve their rights to own slaves. To the North, initially its wasn't about freeing slaves. To them, it was about forcing the rebellious states back into the union.

If you doubt any of the above, simply read the several state Ordinances of Secession as I have. Even a quick scan of them reveals their beef with the federal government was the fear slavery would someday be outlawed by US statute or amendment. There is some jazz in them about states rights, but the central theme of them all is about their right to preserve the institution of chattel slavery.
This is the way I've always understood it.

[soonercody]

One problem with that. Read the first clause of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."

Now sir, what that means is the states are free to do so if they wish per the First Amendment which is the only place religion is mentioned in the entire Constitution or any of its amendments. Seriously.



Actually...

Article VI, Clause 3
...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

- http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html


And...


There is one other direct bow to religion in the original Constitution, and it is a bit obtuse. The Presidential Oath of Office is codified in the Constitution in this way:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Again, the reference might be obtuse, but it is the inclusion of language in the oath that allows an incoming President to swear or affirm the oath. This alternate text has been described both as a way of accommodating those religious persons for whom "swearing" was forbidden, and as a way for the unreligious to take the oath with the same force of personal responsibility that swearing would have for a religious person. Either way, the alternate text attempts to make the oath all-inclusive and religion-neutral.

Finally, the Constitution refers to the year that the Convention created the document as "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Some have argued that the use of the term "Lord" in this way is indicative of something, but it is indicative of nothing more than a standard way of referring to years in that time period.

Some state constitutions are not shy about referencing God - a study of such references is available.
- http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html#original

[BillyBall]

Because the Framer's of the Constitution didn't intend for constitutional protections to apply to the individual states. It has been interpreted that way through the years by the judiciary but that was not the originalist intent. Justice Scalia gave a GREAT talk on this point a few years ago and mentions it from time to time in his talks regarding the use of international law in Federal judicial rulings.

There are two ways to look at the Constitution. Either you believe that the Framers created it giving specific powers to the states merely as administrative districts, or you believe in the natural soverignty of the individual states. Representatives of the individual states created the Federal system and reserved to their states all non-enumerated powers. That isn't to say that every Framer believed in retaining state soverignty (in fact several at the constitutional convention proposed eliminating the states all together) but the document that was created does.




If Article V in your mind shreds all claims to state soverignty then there is NO issue outside the purview of the Federal government. If that were true whey did the Framers's specifically list the powers of Congress and reserve all non-enumerated powers to the state? What you're talking about would amount to states existing merely as administrative districts and not soverign units within the Federalist system.




But that didn't happen. It would have created a constitutional debate that didn't come until much later in this country because in 1810 the Constitution was viewed as a limit on Federal not state power. If such an amendment had been proposed it would have had to specifically include a provision applying that to the individual states. And then I believe in the natural right of a state to leave the Union in such a case.



You're kind of missing the point here. Go back and read the transcripts, debates, and journals from the Constitutional convention because it's truly fascinating. Every issue at the Constitutional convention was based on a coalition of different states depending on what issue was being addressed. In fact, most of the debates centered around "Big States" v. "Small States" with some small states occasionally siding with larger states with the expectation that they would one day become large states. The point is that while not every constitutional debate was about States Rights the debates were made by coalitions of states fighting for the interest of their individual states.

Now, I will agree with you to the extent that the constitutional convention was called on economic reasons relating to debtors laws and the problems it created for interstate commerce. In fact, a prior convention relating only to this problem had been called previously in Virginia but it was a failure because under the Articles of Confederation there was no real way to impose a solution. The Constitutional Convention dealt with this issue with the interstate commerce clause but their doing so did not and does not constitute a relinquishment of all state soverignty to the Federal system.



That's a rather disturbing position to take.

First, what fundamental rights are you referring to? First of all the issue of specifically protecting some fundamental rights actually never reall came up at the constitutional convention because it was assumed that because the powers of Congress were limited that there would be no way for Congress to abuse the rights of the individual citizen. However, as we know the people and the states themselves (which is very important) demanded the ratification of the BOR to limit the FEDERAL government's power to infringe upon those basic rights. Now, those basic rights and the wording of the BOR were taken and borrowed from most of the existing state constitutions which already protected those rights. There were those who disagreed with the Federal protection of individual rights because it may mean that the Federal government would be free to infringe upon all rights not listed in the first 10 amendments. I happen to think their fears were totally correct, but it doesn't change the fact that all of this deals with Federal protections not applicable to the states.

Second, it may be emotionally satisfing to say the states should just pipe down and shut up so the Federal government can be free to do whatever they like whether it be to limit or expand individual rights but that isn't constitutionally correct nor is it ultimately desirable. The biggest argument against it is that the people of every state are different and therefore should be free to craft laws that best serve their beliefs and interests. While you may not be a fan of the imposition of Federal law over the states in all cases your ideas make such action possible in the first place when it shouldn't.


I'll give you spek just for putting in the time to crank this out.....

[Okla-homey]

[QUOTE=soonercody]Actually...

Article VI, Clause 3
...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


You're right. I forgot about that one, but it does not speak to establishment of an official state religion and only applies to federal government gigs. 11 states did then and continued to require state officials to claim a belief in God or membership in the official state denomination for many more years.

[Vaevictis]

Now sir, what that means is the states are free to do so if they wish per the First Amendment which is the only place religion is mentioned in the entire Constitution or any of its amendments. Seriously.

Just because the states aren't explicitly prohibited from doing something doesn't mean that they are permitted to do it (or vice versa). So, is the right to regulate religion reserved to the states, or to the people? :)

(Careful, careful when this can of worms is opened ;) )

[OklahomaTuba]

I say we just vote on it.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'll give you spek just for putting in the time to crank this out.....

I'm just waiting for my grill to heat up. :D

[leavingthezoo]

i think gays should appoint one guy (or girl) and straights should appoint one guy (or girl) and make 'em thumb wrestle. best thumb skills win.

hey, that could work for a lot of stuff, now that i think about it... :D

[OklahomaTuba]

I believe this is clearly against the separation of church and state.

Separation of Church and State is a myth, at best.

If there were a true separation, people wouldn't be taking oaths on a Bible, and there wouldn't be crosses on headstones at military cemetaries around the world.

[Okla-homey]

Just because the states aren't explicitly prohibited from doing something doesn't mean that they are permitted to do it (or vice versa). So, is the right to regulate religion reserved to the states, or to the people? :)

(Careful, careful when this can of worms is opened ;) )

I believe the states were not enjoined from establishing, funding or favoring their flavor of religion by the First Amendment. FWIW, my liberal, New Yorker, Jewish, ACLU member, con law professor feels the same way.;)

He's written a book about it in fact.

[soonercody]

Separation of Church and State is a myth, at best.


This quickly gets to be an interesting discussion. I believe that separation was intended, but convincing points can be made from several angles on this.

[Vaevictis]

I believe the states were not enjoined from establishing, funding or favoring their flavor of religion by the First Amendment. FWIW, my liberal, New Yorker, Jewish, ACLU member, con law professor feels the same way.;)

I've always had a sneaking suspicion to that effect. Of course, I've also always had a sneaking suspicion that it's better to leave that can of worms closed, because I think that hell hath no fury like that which will be released when that particular Pandora's box is opened.

[Okla-homey]

i think gays should appoint one guy (or girl) and straights should appoint one guy (or girl) and make 'em thumb wrestle. best thumb skills win.

hey, that could work for a lot of stuff, now that i think about it... :D

rock, paper, scissors is prolly fairer because the straight guy might have a stronger thumb as would a butch lesbian.:D

just saying.

[OklahomaTuba]

So Homey, hows about me and you start a signature campaign at FBC getting this here state offically Baptist? About damn time I would say! ;)

[Okla-homey]

I've always had a sneaking suspicion to that effect. Of course, I've also always had a sneaking suspicion that it's better to leave that can of worms closed, because I think that hell hath no fury like that which will be released when that particular Pandora's box is opened.

agreed!!!

[OklahomaTuba]

This quickly gets to be an interesting discussion. I believe that separation was intended, but convincing points can be made from several angles on this.

Intended by one founder no doubt, but I believe there were many other founders, and many of those other guys believed differently.

[leavingthezoo]

rock, paper, scissors is prolly fairer because the straight guy might have a stronger thumb as would a butch lesbian.:D

just saying.

true... but a gay guy might be willing to go places the straight guy isn't... and therefore wins by the kancho clause. :D

[Okla-homey]

So Homey, hows about me and you start a signature campaign at FBC getting this here state offically Baptist? About damn time I would say! ;)

Naw, I'm too busy. My current project involves trying to get some free basic legal aid services established for indigent and homeless folks in Tulsa. Peem me and I'll tell you how you can help. Lots of good red-meat conservative personal liberty and right to property issues at stake.

[Vaevictis]

So Homey, hows about me and you start a signature campaign at FBC getting this here state offically Baptist? About damn time I would say! ;)

It's all fun and games until some Mullah gets wind of this sh*t, convinces a few million Muslims to move from California and New York and vote in the Islamic Republic of Oklahoma.

[SicEmBaylor]

It's all fun and games until some Mullah gets wind of this sh*t, convinces a few million Muslims to move from California and New York and vote in the Islamic Republic of Oklahoma.

I'm going to have to vote Nay on the state becoming Baptist. I'm around enough of that as it is.

The state has the right to establish a state religion, but the state should never EXERCISE that right.

Unless we're making the state Methodist. :D

[Vaevictis]

Actually, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with outlawing the cult down in College Station. That may be the one instance in which the state should regulate religion.

[SicEmBaylor]

Actually, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with outlawing the cult down in College Station. That may be the one instance in which the state should regulate religion.

Spek

[OklahomaTuba]

It's all fun and games until some Mullah gets wind of this sh*t, convinces a few million Muslims to move from California and New York and vote in the Islamic Republic of Oklahoma.
Thats why we need to act fast. While this state is still 95% Baptist. :D

[GottaHavePride]

If there were a true separation, people wouldn't be taking oaths on a Bible, and there wouldn't be crosses on headstones at military cemetaries around the world.

Some of them are also Stars of David. I think the cross is put there because the person in the grave is a Christian, not any other reason.

[Skysooner]

One problem with that. Read the first clause of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."

Now sir, what that means is the states are free to do so if they wish per the First Amendment which is the only place religion is mentioned in the entire Constitution or any of its amendments. Seriously.

In fact, in 1781 when those words were penned, every state except tiny Rhode Island and Pennsylvania had a "state religion." Those states were the exception because the Baptists in RI were renegades from puritanical Massachusetts and Pennsylvania was a religious freedom refuge begun by the Quaker William Penn.

Sooo, while today its tough sledding for a state to favor a particular religion, its simply not unconstitutional.

Then why is it illegal for even a county to display a nativity scene? They are a county and/or state government. Also as I remember it, federal laws supercede a state laws when it conflicts with the Constitution. There is no doubt in my mind that such a law will be declared unconstitutional.

[Okla-homey]

Some of them are also Stars of David. I think the cross is put there because the person in the grave is a Christian, not any other reason.

and the angel Moroni blowing his trumpet for LDS, a crescent for Muslims, and I've even seen a chakra wheel for Hindus.

I believe its also possible for the family to order the stone free of any religious symbol.

[Skysooner]

Separation of Church and State is a myth, at best.

If there were a true separation, people wouldn't be taking oaths on a Bible, and there wouldn't be crosses on headstones at military cemetaries around the world.

Whether it is a myth or not, as short as 40 years ago, JFK in a speech in Houston prior to the election affirmed that he was for the separation of church and state and that no prelate would help him determine policy. His vision was to have a country where Jews, Christians and Catholics could live together without the state promoting any of them. Now we have a President that is all for the promotion of fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Any President has the right to use his moral beliefs to shape his policy but to attempt to codify it into law is another thing altogether.

[SicEmBaylor]

Whether it is a myth or not, as short as 40 years ago, JFK in a speech in Houston prior to the election affirmed that he was for the separation of church and state and that no prelate would help him determine policy. His vision was to have a country where Jews, Christians and Catholics could live together without the state promoting any of them. Now we have a President that is all for the promotion of fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Any President has the right to use his moral beliefs to shape his policy but to attempt to codify it into law is another thing altogether.

How has he attempted to codify it into law? Could you please reference the legislation where this takes place?

The only example I can think of is the faith based initiative which allows Federal funding to religous organizations providing humanitarian services such as soup kitchens. All it does is say that federal funding won't be denied to them simply because they are religous and use religion as part of their humanitarian service. Furthermore, it doesn't limit money to christian organizations only it goes for any religion including islam and judaism.

Now, I have a problem with it for an entirely different reason. My problem with the faith based program is that it amounts to Federal redistribution of wealth cloaked as social conservatism.

[Skysooner]

How has he attempted to codify it into law? Could you please reference the legislation where this takes place?

The only example I can think of is the faith based initiative which allows Federal funding to religous organizations providing humanitarian services such as soup kitchens. All it does is say that federal funding won't be denied to them simply because they are religous and use religion as part of their humanitarian service. Furthermore, it doesn't limit money to christian organizations only it goes for any religion including islam and judaism.

Now, I have a problem with it for an entirely different reason. My problem with the faith based program is that it amounts to Federal redistribution of wealth cloaked as social conservatism.

Actually I never said this President had codified anything into law. However, the intentions seem plain to me. He has been very partisan in his rhetoric, and some of the abuses of power under his leadership tend to lean towards this. To many of us who are liberal Christians but moderate Republicans, the takeover of the Republican party by the fundamentalist elements is a big problem.

[Okla-homey]

Then why is it illegal for even a county to display a nativity scene? They are a county and/or state government. Also as I remember it, federal laws supercede a state laws when it conflicts with the Constitution. There is no doubt in my mind that such a law will be declared unconstitutional.

Judge made case law, not the Constitution makes those displays a problem. Case law evolves. It can broaden then snap back. No telling where we'll be in 50 years on this. Especially with the Court as it is currently composed.

[SicEmBaylor]

Judge made case law, not the Constitution makes those displays a problem. Case law evolves. It can broaden then snap back. No telling where we'll be in 50 years on this. Especially with the Court as it is currently composed.

It's not illegal for a county to display a nativity scene. The Supreme Court has basically created two different standards for when a nativity scene is constitutional or not.

I forget the exact criteria but the jest of it is if the nativity scene is one scene among other religous displays then it is constitutional. But if the entire focus is on just that nativity scene then it is unconstitutional.