h a l f b a k e r yWhy not imagine it in a way that works?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Thomas Jefferson stated that there shall be a wall of
separation between church and state, and the Supreme
Court has repeatedly affirmed that this statement is
applicable to the Constitution which he drafted. Despite
this, every politician running for the Office of the President
of the United
States
on the Republican ticket during the last
few election campaigns has cited the teachings and
interpretations of the Christian Bible as their *only* reason
for opposing issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
They are thus blatantly announcing an intent to violate the
principles of the US Constitution when they make such
statements, yet the President (in fact, all public officials) is
supposed to uphold and support the principles of the
Constitution.
So my idea is to add a clause to the Constitution that
disqualifies from public office any candidate who announces
an intent to disobey the Constitution. As soon as the
candidate says in any publicly-available speech or written
document that he intends to do something which is
blatantly unconstitutional (such as letting a religious decree
guide his hand in policy making), he is immediately brought
before the Supreme Court to decide if he did, in fact,
declare an intent to do something which violates the
Constitution.
If the Supreme Court finds the candidate guilty of intent to
abuse the powers of his office, he is disqualified from
holding any public office (mayor, governor, senator,
congressman, President, etc.) for X number of years, X to
be determined by the Court.
Machdonough's song
http://www.poetrylo...cdonoughs_song.html
[Voice, Jul 18 2012]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
God made enough humans not give a rat's ass about homosexuality. But an institution that codifies capital M Marriages suffers from applying that moniker to a union that doesn't produce offspring (who then grow up within and justifying the institution, rinse and repeat).
|
|
| |
Abortion, on the other hand, He/She might have some concerns about.
|
|
| |
No, that's my chisel... get your own. |
|
| |
Speaking of chisels, the act of prohibiting
someone from practicing their belief would surely
be against the Constitution.
|
|
| |
Not to mention, let's imagine the hypothetical
situation where a candidate for President says he
wants to abolish the perfectly Constitutional (at
the time) practice of slavery?
|
|
| |
The road to hell is paved with wanting magical
fixes to complicated problems. |
|
| |
//the act of prohibiting someone from practicing
their belief would surely be against the
Constitution//
|
|
| |
Surely this isn't prohibiting someone from
practicing their belief, it's just requiring them not
to bring it into their day job.
|
|
| |
However, the solution is surely just not to vote
for someone if you disagree with their beliefs; you
can only do that if they state their beliefs. |
|
| |
Another great thing about the constitution is that it allows a person to say whatever they want. |
|
| |
Wow, this road sure is bumpy. And what's that smell? |
|
| |
The president doing what his religion tells him to
does not directly violate the separation between
church and state. |
|
| |
While I like the spirit of this Idea, it has a fundamental flaw. That's because the Constution has a process built into it for Amending it. And an Amendment is allowed to be anything at all. It could even be something like this: "All prior portions of the Constitution and Amendments are hereby nullified. The New Law of The Land shall be ..." --and anything would be allowable, provided that this new Amendment was passed in accordance with the rules of the CURRENT Constitution. |
|
| |
I'm reminded of a poem that drastically altered my
view of politics when I first read it. linky |
|
| |
//it allows a person to say whatever they want.//
|
|
| |
Yes it does, which is why I'm not suggesting a
jail/prison term or monetary fine (ie, punishment)
for stating such intentions. Regarding Amendments,
well that's different. If your intention is to actually
change the wording the wording of the Constitution
via the Amendment process, then the aspiring
President should say that. But currently, letting one's
religion shape his policy making agenda *is* a
violation of Church and State, because he is
allowing the Church (some would call them a
political body) to influence the law.
|
|
| |
Let's look at something like murder, for instance. An
aspiring politician doesn't need to say he thinks
murder is wrong because it's against the 10
commandments. Murderers need to be locked up
and/or put down because they physically endanger
everyone else in the community. Thus, religion
doesn't *necessarily* have a role in that. Same with
things like theft. And while there might be other
reasons for opposing gay marriage (//suffers from
applying that moniker to a union that doesn't
produce offspring//"), there are none which apply
*exclusively* to gay marriage. Say you don't like it
because you think marriage should produce children.
Are you suggesting we make a law which makes it a
crime to produce children *out* of wedlock? Are you
suggesting we make a law which bans
infertile/barren people (like post-menopausal
women, or guys with prostate cancer) from getting
married? Fair's fair. There are a lot of heterosexual
couples who can't produce offspring. If gays can't
marry on that basis, then neither can they. Right? |
|
| |
^ on a basic level yes, but some of those are for family (ie: state continuity) repair *
|
|
| |
I'm just saying that as long as Marriage has a traditional meaning that includes children, then the State, in that respect, isn't receiving any return on its investment. Isn't sterility one of the grounds for annulment ?
|
|
| |
yer a bugger 21 ;), forcing me to think over stuff that wasn't simply a knee-jerk response in the first place. The State still has an interest in hetero childless couples that are shacking up being married though it's a different paradigm based on alleviating moral unrest.
|
|
| |
(note that the state also has no interest in whether people are happy or not, the actual personal relationship is non-sequitur)
|
|
| |
The upshot is that the State has nothing to gain by gay couples being married.
|
|
| |
Crap, that sounds cold... keep poking. |
|
| |
I think we're quite free to vote for people based
on either their beliefs or the absence thereof.
And the candidates can be quite free to practice
their religion, so long as they do not establish
their religion. The violation of the constitution is
the State forcing an officially sanctioned belief on
you. A politician that believes the Earth is flat
has every right to both run and to be elected, so long
as she does not force you to practice it. |
|
| |
Except that many Republicans have stated
repeatedly
that they intend to ban gay marriage and abortion,
based exclusively on religious principles. That means
they intend to force every gay couple who wants to
get married and every woman who wants to get an
abortion to abide by Christian religious decrees.
That
is the very definition of forcing others to practice
your religion.
|
|
| |
Again, if they intend to accomplish this goal by
modifying the Constitution (ie, via the Amendment
process), then they should say so. But so far, they
haven't said a single word about changing the
Constitution. They intend to enforce religious
doctrine, which the Supreme Court has determined
many times is unconstitutional.
|
|
| |
If a President were to try something like once in
office, they would be subject to impeachment,
which wastes time and distracts voters from other
issues. The idea behind my proposed clause is to get
that impeachment process out of the way before
the person is even voted into office, or to put it
another way, a preemptive impeachment based not
on what the defendant has done but what he has
declared intent to do. |
|
| |
Im guessing they looked at the number of people in the country who are, or like to pretend to be, Christians (of the stripe that have never had to deal with the subjects matter: there are churches that stem from the Xian tradition which allow gay marriage), in which case it's democracy. |
|
| |
But in our society, in our legal system, even the power
of the majority is restricted by the Constitution. Thus,
we are protected from the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. |
|
| |
k, I'm not familiar with "our" Constitution (I'm not even familiar with our Constitution): what's the protection mechanism ? |
|
| |
I think that a political party whose fundamental
reason for existence was the complete abolition of
religious teaching; worship; books; materials and
observance would probably be a good thing.
|
|
| |
It would certainly create enough distraction for
governments to get on with all of the other things
they are meant to do, instead of squabbling about
the rights of zygotes and brain-dead accident
victims. |
|
| |
[21] -- I think you are a bit confused on the issue
of Separation. If a candidate were even to
propose that, say, Zen Bud-ism is the official
religion of the United States -- that does not constitutionally disqualify him from office. Passing
that law does not disqualify him from office
either. Nor would arguing in front of the Supreme
Court to maintain the law be disqualifying. The
ONLY thing that would be disqualifying is failing to
obey the Supreme Court AFTER it ruled the law
unconstitutional. Your right to your beliefs and
opinions is protected. The line that protects the
minority against the tyranny is in fact the Court,
which may choose to strike down such a law, as
well as, of course, a future election.
|
|
| |
If you were to discriminate against candidates
that argue against any form of marriage, or birth
control, on religious ground, you would in fact be
violating the Separation doctrine, because you
would be arguing that such beliefs are somehow
disqualifying -- whereas the belief of someone
who arrived at the same point of view on non-
religious grounds would somehow be considered
more valuable. |
|
| |
//whereas the belief of someone who arrived at the
same point of view on non- religious grounds would
somehow be considered more valuable.//
|
|
| |
I'm good with that. It implies they actually thought
about the issue, rather than followed the edict of
some parasitic "holy man". |
|
| |
sure, UB. But under the guise of a more perfect
union, this proposal would violate the very same
right it purports to defend. |
|
| |
Same as it ever was, [tc]. This argument will outlast
humanity, if there is ever such a thing found in
religious discourse. |
|
| |
My proposed clause only disqaulifies from office those who
declare an intent to force their religion on the masses.
That's
not a violation of any right granted by the Constitution.
You
have the right to practice your religion, but you do NOT
have
the right to attempt to force your religion on anybody
else. To even attempt to do so would be an abuse of
power and a violation of the separation between church
and state. Regarding your concern about discriminating
against
those with religious beliefs in favor of those with the same
ideas that they arrived at through other means, I draw
your attention to the fact that there is a recognized
separation of church and state, but not a separation of
logic and state. A logical argument is, literally 'in fact',
more valid than a theological argument. Thus, my
argument (presented in my first annotation) explaining
why gay marriage should be allowed is more valid, in
Constitutional terms, than one which basically boils down
to 'because the Bible says so'. |
|
| |
Au contraire, a theological argument, deriving as it does from God's will, trumps a human understanding of logic... if you happen to subscribe to that particular god of course.
|
|
| |
//"... because the Bible says so"// I see your objection and agree [+].
|
|
| |
So if he had a better speech-writer the phrase should be "...because the Bible tells me so". I'm not sure modern politicians are willing to take that much personal responsibility for their actions. |
|
| |
I kinda thought someone might get a kick out of that one... |
|
| |
Don't get no kicks AFTER the abortion, [21]. |
|
| |
I had this exact idea a week ago, glad to see you posted it much better then I could have done.
|
|
| |
I do believe you are rather naive though to actually think people running for office are really religious men. They just use religious fools by the millions to get to power.
|
|
| |
You don't really believe roman consuls thought their actions were judged by gods on some mountain do you? |
|
| |
There were probably some that did... and some that, though they didn't, made all their words and actions in accordance with the local religion... in which case, to the populace, what's the difference ?
|
|
| |
And, as long as I have the floor, what's with "In God We Trust" ? Quite apt for modern unbacked fiat-currency, but that's been on US money long before that. |
|
| |
really 21Q, what country do you live in? The USA that I live in barely pays lip service to the fundamental principles in the constitution. When was the last time you asserted your right to have privacy in your person and papers? Body searches happen constantly. Your personal affects, protected from search in the constitution can be rifled by an officer of the peace without explanation. |
|
| |