Newt Gingrich is known for outrageous outbursts and wild ideas, but he's putting out some really scary stuff this week.
His latest attack is on the independence of the judiciary. Any time a judge issues a ruling that Gingrich doesn't like, he wants to send U.S. Marshals out with congressional subpoenas to haul the judge in front of Congress, where the judge would be grilled by every angry member of Congress who didn't agree with the judge's ruling.
Does that sound like a good way to ensure an independent judiciary?
Next, Newt will simply ignore the law if he becomes president. Under his leadership, the Executive Branch of government will simply ignore the Judicial Branch whenever Newt doesn't like the law.
Yeah, I think I'll do that too – just ignore any laws I don't like. If Newt can do it, why can't I?
And if that isn't enough to destroy the careful balance of powers enshrined in our Constitution, Gingrich wants to simply fire judges and close down courts that consistently issue anti-religious rulings. He'd start with the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals (those well-known liberals!) and a federal judge in Texas who upheld the separation of church and state by banning school-sanctioned prayer in Texas.
Really. He actually said that.
And Gingrich isn't just all talk. For example, he provided $200,000 seed money for a witch hunt that ousted three of the judges who ruled that same-sex marriage is legal.
This may just be Gingrich pandering to Iowa, where conservative Christians reign. But I don't think so. I think this man, if elected president, would embark on a massive campaign to trample civil rights for non-Christians, the LGBT community, and anyone else who he doesn't think is a proper American.
It was bad enough when Gingrich was House Speaker, but this man could theoretically become president.
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Georgia License Plates Require 'In God We Trust' - Why this is Great!
Secular News Daily is reporting a new Georgia law that will require "In God We Trust" on all car license plates. Georgians who don't like it will have to pay extra to get a state-approved sticker to cover it up!
Atheists are naturally up in arms about this glaring violation of the First Amendment. But I sort of like it. I believe this could be one of the best things that happened to secularism in America in the last ten years – if they're foolish enough to go through with it.
Why? Because it could force the Supreme Court to take "In God We Trust" off of our money.
Atheists have objected to "In God We Trust" on currency and as the national motto for decades, but the courts have been unsympathetic. The Supreme Court stated that "In God We Trust" and similar slogans are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."
But having a dollar in your pocket is quite different than being required to drive around with "In God We Trust" on your car for everyone to see. Imagine what Christians would do if they had to drive around in cars that said, "Trust Reason, Because There Is No God." They would be quite within their rights to refuse.
It's hard to imagine that the Supreme Court will be able to sidestep this one. It will reach their doorstep. And once it's there, it's hard to imagine that they would force non-religious citizens to drive around advertising religious beliefs. Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't think so.
Now think about what happens next ... if it's unconstitutional for Georgia to force atheists to have "In God We Trust" on every car, how can you simultaneously allow the slogan on our money? Banning it on license plates while allowing it on money would require a lot of legal sleight-of-hand tricks.
I actually hope Georgia goes through with this discriminatory plan. It will become a perfect opportunity to fight back against the erosion of our First Amendment rights.
Atheists are naturally up in arms about this glaring violation of the First Amendment. But I sort of like it. I believe this could be one of the best things that happened to secularism in America in the last ten years – if they're foolish enough to go through with it.
Why? Because it could force the Supreme Court to take "In God We Trust" off of our money.
Atheists have objected to "In God We Trust" on currency and as the national motto for decades, but the courts have been unsympathetic. The Supreme Court stated that "In God We Trust" and similar slogans are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."
But having a dollar in your pocket is quite different than being required to drive around with "In God We Trust" on your car for everyone to see. Imagine what Christians would do if they had to drive around in cars that said, "Trust Reason, Because There Is No God." They would be quite within their rights to refuse.
It's hard to imagine that the Supreme Court will be able to sidestep this one. It will reach their doorstep. And once it's there, it's hard to imagine that they would force non-religious citizens to drive around advertising religious beliefs. Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't think so.
Now think about what happens next ... if it's unconstitutional for Georgia to force atheists to have "In God We Trust" on every car, how can you simultaneously allow the slogan on our money? Banning it on license plates while allowing it on money would require a lot of legal sleight-of-hand tricks.
I actually hope Georgia goes through with this discriminatory plan. It will become a perfect opportunity to fight back against the erosion of our First Amendment rights.
Catholics Persecuted over Gay Adoption in Illinois? Not Even Close.
Once again, the Roman Catholic Church is giving out misinformation instead of facing the truth.
Catholic Charities, an Illinois adoption agency, had to close its doors because it lost funding from the state. According to attorney Peter Breen, the state is breaking the plain language of the law and violating the will of the citizens:
But this is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the real truth. They lost on Constitutional principles that had nothing to do with the Illinois Civil Union Act.
The simple fact is that the Catholic Charities can continue to provide adoption services – if they can raise funds privately. They just can't have the taxpayers' money to do it. As Waymon Hudson at Redeye put it:
The United States Constitution cuts both ways: it protects our rights to worship or not as we please, but it also says churches can't discriminate using public funds. The Catholic Church has every right to discriminate, however uncaring or cruel it might be. But they can't spend our tax dollars to do it.
So why the smokescreen? Why can't the Catholics just admit that they lost their legal fight fair and square? Because they want to look persecuted. It's the good ol' Underdog Meme – the idea that somehow Catholics and other Christians, who make up roughly 80% of America's population, are a persecuted minority whose rights are being trampled. It's laughable on the face of it. But sadly, people always root for the underdog, so the meme propagates.
Catholic Charities, an Illinois adoption agency, had to close its doors because it lost funding from the state. According to attorney Peter Breen, the state is breaking the plain language of the law and violating the will of the citizens:
"The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act only passed after specific assurances that the law would not impact the work of religious social service agencies. Specific protections for these agencies were written into the law, but unfortunately, Illinois officials refused to abide by those protections. This stands as a stark lesson to the rest of the nation that legislators promising 'religious protection' in same sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises."Gosh, that sounds awful, doesn't it?
But this is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the real truth. They lost on Constitutional principles that had nothing to do with the Illinois Civil Union Act.
The simple fact is that the Catholic Charities can continue to provide adoption services – if they can raise funds privately. They just can't have the taxpayers' money to do it. As Waymon Hudson at Redeye put it:
"At the heart of the issue is the over $30 million dollars that Catholic Charities receives from the state of Illinois for foster care and adoption services. This effectively moves them from a private faith-based organization, which does have built-in religious exemptions as the name of the civil unions law implies, to an administrator of state-funded public services. The are essentially acting as an agent of the state."The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, which they try to claim is being violated, only says that they don't have to perform marriages or adoptions for same-sex couples (or for anyone else they don't like). Nobody is going to force a Catholic priest to stand in his own church and marry two men or two women.
The United States Constitution cuts both ways: it protects our rights to worship or not as we please, but it also says churches can't discriminate using public funds. The Catholic Church has every right to discriminate, however uncaring or cruel it might be. But they can't spend our tax dollars to do it.
So why the smokescreen? Why can't the Catholics just admit that they lost their legal fight fair and square? Because they want to look persecuted. It's the good ol' Underdog Meme – the idea that somehow Catholics and other Christians, who make up roughly 80% of America's population, are a persecuted minority whose rights are being trampled. It's laughable on the face of it. But sadly, people always root for the underdog, so the meme propagates.
Labels:
adoption,
catholic,
christian,
constitution,
gay,
homosexual,
illinois,
lgbt,
separation
Obama: Leave God in Pledge and on Money
"Under God" is going to stay in the Pledge of Allegiance for a while.
Last month a petition to President Obama to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance was signed by over 20,000 American citizens. It's clear that this is a minority opinion in America, but protecting minorities is what the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is all about.
Now the White House has made the administration's position clear: God should stay in our Pledge and on our currency. I know for a fact that regardless of the President's feelings about separation of church and state, he'd be committing political suicide to endorse anything that took God out of our government. That's just politics.
The heart of the White House response is this:
Below is the whole text the email I received from the White House.
Religion in the Public Square
By Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Thank you for signing the petition “Edit the Pledge of Allegiance to remove the phrase ‘Under God.’” We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov.
The separation of church and state outlined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an important founding principle of our nation. Our nation’s Bill of Rights guarantees not only that the government cannot establish an official religion, but also guarantees citizens’ rights to practice the religion of their choosing or no religion at all.
Throughout our history, people of all faiths – as well as secular Americans – have played an important role in public life. And a robust dialogue about the role of religion in public life is an important part of our public discourse.
While the President strongly supports every American’s right to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, that does not mean there’s no role for religion in the public square.
When he was a Senator from Illinois, President Obama gave a keynote address at the Call to Renewal conference where he spoke about the important role religion plays in politics and in public life.
A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters.
That’s why President Obama supports the use of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” on our currency. These phrases represent the important role religion plays in American public life, while we continue to recognize and protect the rights of secular Americans. As the President said in his inaugural address, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” We’re proud of that heritage, and the strength it brings to our great country.
Last month a petition to President Obama to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance was signed by over 20,000 American citizens. It's clear that this is a minority opinion in America, but protecting minorities is what the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is all about.
Now the White House has made the administration's position clear: God should stay in our Pledge and on our currency. I know for a fact that regardless of the President's feelings about separation of church and state, he'd be committing political suicide to endorse anything that took God out of our government. That's just politics.
The heart of the White House response is this:
"A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters.So, we have to look at this petition as just one more step on a long road.
That’s why President Obama supports the use of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” on our currency.
Below is the whole text the email I received from the White House.
Religion in the Public Square
By Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Thank you for signing the petition “Edit the Pledge of Allegiance to remove the phrase ‘Under God.’” We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov.
The separation of church and state outlined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an important founding principle of our nation. Our nation’s Bill of Rights guarantees not only that the government cannot establish an official religion, but also guarantees citizens’ rights to practice the religion of their choosing or no religion at all.
Throughout our history, people of all faiths – as well as secular Americans – have played an important role in public life. And a robust dialogue about the role of religion in public life is an important part of our public discourse.
While the President strongly supports every American’s right to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, that does not mean there’s no role for religion in the public square.
When he was a Senator from Illinois, President Obama gave a keynote address at the Call to Renewal conference where he spoke about the important role religion plays in politics and in public life.
A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters.
That’s why President Obama supports the use of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” on our currency. These phrases represent the important role religion plays in American public life, while we continue to recognize and protect the rights of secular Americans. As the President said in his inaugural address, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” We’re proud of that heritage, and the strength it brings to our great country.
California Law Makes it a Crime to Plan to Gamble in Nevada!
Taking inspiration from H.R. 313 (the "drug trafficking" bill that makes it illegal to plan or discuss smoking marijuana in Amsterdam, even though it's legal there), the State of California today made it a crime to plan a trip to Nevada to gamble, even though it's legal to gamble in Nevada.
"We're tired of Nevada's gambling casinos ruining the lives of California citizens," said Governor Jerry Brown. "From now on, if a Californian wants to go see Wayne Newton singing at the Tropicana, and happens to drop a quarter in the slots on the way to the show, that's fine. But by golly, if they even think about gambling before they head for The Strip, we want them to know they're going to jail for violating California law."
Governor Brown outlined plans to question all motorists and airline passengers entering Nevada. "A system of airport security stations and highway border-crossing stations will be built to ensure that California citizens aren't planning to gamble," said the governor. "They're only allowed to think about gambling once they've arrived."
Several other states are lining up to criminalize the travel-planning business:
When questioned about gamblers who might evade the California gambling-conspiracy ban by traveling to Nevada via Oregon or Arizona, Brown sounded positively gleeful. "That's conspiring to gamble, conspiring to hide the conspiracy, and crossing state lines to commit a conspiracy. We'll nail 'em to the wall!"
Critics of these new laws point out that they will face Constitutional challenges. But Governor Brown was quick to respond. "Are they conspiring to prevent passage of this law?"
"We're tired of Nevada's gambling casinos ruining the lives of California citizens," said Governor Jerry Brown. "From now on, if a Californian wants to go see Wayne Newton singing at the Tropicana, and happens to drop a quarter in the slots on the way to the show, that's fine. But by golly, if they even think about gambling before they head for The Strip, we want them to know they're going to jail for violating California law."
Governor Brown outlined plans to question all motorists and airline passengers entering Nevada. "A system of airport security stations and highway border-crossing stations will be built to ensure that California citizens aren't planning to gamble," said the governor. "They're only allowed to think about gambling once they've arrived."
Several other states are lining up to criminalize the travel-planning business:
- Arkansas residents who plan to travel to Mississippi in order to store their alligators in a bathtub are now subject to conspiracy prosecution.
- Minnesota will finally be able to prosecute men and women who conspire to sleep without their pajamas in New York.
- Texas is finally going to put a stop to citizens planning trips other states to sell their eyeballs.
When questioned about gamblers who might evade the California gambling-conspiracy ban by traveling to Nevada via Oregon or Arizona, Brown sounded positively gleeful. "That's conspiring to gamble, conspiring to hide the conspiracy, and crossing state lines to commit a conspiracy. We'll nail 'em to the wall!"
Critics of these new laws point out that they will face Constitutional challenges. But Governor Brown was quick to respond. "Are they conspiring to prevent passage of this law?"
Labels:
constitution,
drugs,
hr 313
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)