USAToday: Judge Rules National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

[techboy]

Although given our current Supreme Court, I could see them deciding that since Pat Robertson makes money from his TV network, therefore Christianity is Interstate Commerce.

Commerce clause you fool.

The answer is always the Commerce clause. :laugh:

That was my second choice, but I prefer mine for the slight editorial comment.

[Larry]

The general welfare clause many like to point to is, in fact, found in Article 1, Section 8, which covers taxing and spending.

The chapter heading of that section is "Section 8 - Powers of Congress".

And all of the enumerated powers are in that section. For example, it reads "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare". You want to claim that Congress can't create the DoD, either?

BTW, while looking this up, I noticed something I hadn't noticed, before.

At least on

the copy of the Constitution I'm looking at

, all of the enumerated powers, which are spaced out in a style resembling paragraphs, are actually a single sentence. They all end in semicolons, not periods.

[John Lydon]

"All religions do have a god. You name a religion and I will give you its god."

Your speaking for other religions here. And your tone kind of implies either every religion has a god or you don't see the difference between what others worship and gods.

The reason I brought up Bhuddism, even though there are some form of gods in Bhuddism as it comes from a religion of many gods, is that telling a Bhuddist they have a god with a Christian tone is basically ignoring their entire belief structure. One could go further and say your statement is offensive. Their answer to you about if they have "a God" probably wouldn't sound so great to your religion either.

The irony, is that's a very Judeo-Christian centric way of thinking on religion in general, in a thread about whether the National Day of Prayer violates the establishment clause.

So by acknowledging that every religion has a god or gods (notice the lowercase g's), I'm being offensive?

I'm not speaking for any religion. Their gods are plainly spelled out in the religion itself. I have Google. I was implying to you that I can piece those two things together if you wished.

As far as my tone goes, I was unaware that capatilizing a word presents a certain tone.

Again, my habit of typing God with a capitol G is just that. A habit. I'm willing to move on if you are.

She gave her grounds.

Point taken.

[Skins24]

The topic of this post is a case, yet again, of one particular religion attempting to use it's majority status to get the US Government to promote their religion, in clear violation of the US Constitution.

As evidenced by.........what?

But when the topic is the federal government actively promoting Christianity, and the Constitution's prohibition of this activity, suddenly we get things like:

Again, evidence (of the gov actively promoting Chirstianity)?

Same question I asked earlier: The portion of the Constitution that grants the government the power to encourage citizens to pray is . . . ?

It isn't in there. Just as there's no portion that grants the government the power to discourage prayer

There is no portion that grants the government the power to encourage citizens to mourn, yet we have days of mourning. Should I be offended if I didn't like or know the person who passed?

Again, this day is not enforced or forced. 230+ years since the first one, no one has ever died because of this day. No one was ever forced to do what they don't want to do. And no one's freedoms, rights, or quality of life were ever affected by this day.

[Larry]

As far as my tone goes, I was unaware that capatilizing a word presents a certain tone.

'Least as far as I'm aware, capital letters are used to designate proper nouns. As in "the name of a specific person."

[Thiebear]

A National Day of Prayer should be done by the Church not the Government.

It's not like the Churches are not big enough and can't reach out to their congregation.

[Larry]

Again, this day is not enforced or forced. 230+ years since the first one, no one has ever died because of this day. No one was ever forced to do what they don't want to do. And no one's freedoms, rights, or quality of life were ever affected by this day.

Except for their right to live in a country where the government doesn't tell people when to pray.

[techboy]

And all of the enumerated powers are in that section. For example, it reads "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare". You want to claim that Congress can't create the DoD, either?

I was just linking Burgold's joke to mine. Don't get stuck in argument mode, Larry.

Since you asked, though, my opinion is that the "general welfare" clause is not, in fact, carte blanche to do anything the government pleases as long as they can claim that somebody somewhere benefits, no. Should it be read as such, the 10th ammendment, much abused as it is, becomes completely meaningless, and there are no limits on government at all.

My reading of the "general welfare" phrase in Article 1 Section 8 is that the phrase is simply a bit of fluff explaining a reason for the actual enumerated power in that bit, i.e.:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and purpose for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

to collect taxes.

Having gone to Wikipedia Law school for my third year (Law and Order episodes representing my first two years), I see that perhaps the Supreme Court agrees with me (or at least did):

It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. However, it has been argued that, in the case of the United States Constitution, the statement regarding the "general welfare" was not then and is not now intended to give plenary power to the Federal Government. [2] These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the description above, and are not considered broad grants of a general legislative power to the federal government since the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,

that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States was the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]

Chief Justice John Marshall described a further limit on the the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[8]

Or perhaps I agree with them, given that they are perhaps slightly more qualified and wrote the opinion before I was alive.

It does, perhaps, present a bit of a problem though, to those who like a broader, more powerful government, and point to the general welfare clause as their justification for giving every child a free Dr. Seuss book or whatever.

None of this is very funny, though.

[Skins24]

Except for their right to live in a country where the government doesn't tell people when to pray.

Do you have any evidence the government ever did this?

[Seabee1973]

All religions do have a god. You name a religion and I will give you its god.

.

Athiesm

[Larry]

Do you have any evidence the government ever did this?

Do you have any evidence that you've read this thread?

[Skins24]

Athiesm

Not a religion

[Skins24]

Do you have any evidence that you've read this thread?

Yes. As I've quoted and responded to people in this thread. I will have had to read this thread to see their quote.

Now...

What does that have to do with anything? And how about answering my question?

[Spec138]

There is no portion that grants the government the power to encourage citizens to mourn, yet we have days of mourning. Should I be offended if I didn't like or know the person who passed?

Again, this day is not enforced or forced. 230+ years since the first one, no one has ever died because of this day. No one was ever forced to do what they don't want to do. And no one's freedoms, rights, or quality of life were ever affected by this day.

You and Lydon seem to think the reason the law was challenged is because it was offensive. That's not the reason, the reason is the fundamental constitutionality of the day which a judge deemed unconstitutional. This means the ridiculous "Trees offend me, no Arbor Day!!!!11!1111" type arguments are logically incorrect.

[Larry]

Yes. As I've quoted and responded to people in this thread. I will have had to read this thread to see their quote.

Now...

What does that have to do with anything? And how about answering my question?

See the original post in the thread. I call your attention to third paragraph of the article ASF posted.

Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray.

[Mooka]

So by acknowledging that every religion has a god or gods (notice the lowercase g's), I'm being offensive?

I'm not speaking for any religion. Their gods are plainly spelled out in the religion itself. I have Google. I was implying to you that I can piece those two things together if you wished.

I didn't say you're being offensive. I'm just pointing out other points of view. To an atheist, you are completely delusional. To you, that's probably kind of offensive.

As far as my tone goes, I was unaware that capatilizing a word presents a certain tone.

Again, my habit of typing God with a capitol G is just that. A habit. I'm willing to move on if you are.

Well it does present a tone, when you capitalize God, you're treating it as a proper noun, as in the Lord God.

[PokerPacker]

Doesn't the First Amendment read "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."? Forgive me, I'm going on memory here.

So it would seem a proclamation issue by the President can in no way violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The president could issue a proclamation declaring himself the God-King of Venus and it wouldn't violate the Constitution.

This is the kind of issue that should just be decided democratically.

Well, you see, in the constitution, Congress is the branch of government that creates laws. Thus, when it says that Congress, the law-making branch of the government, shall make no law, it means there shall be no law.

[Seabee1973]

I would feel that it's historically inaccurate, because the Bible did not exist when Jesus was here on earth

It did exist but not as we know it today

[Seabee1973]

Not a religion

Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.

[greenspandan]

Not a religion

are you saying it's not protected by the constitution?

[Skins24]

Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.

Atheism is not a religion, it's just a belief...or nonbelief...

Doesn't fit any definition of religion

are you saying it's not protected by the constitution?

What? Trying to figure out where this came from.

Of course if an atheist is a U.S. citizen then he or she is protected by the constitution. Just as those who believe the moon landing was a hoax. Or those who still believe the Earth is flat.

Larry:

You still haven't shown how 1) that is forcing anyone to do anything and seeing as how not all presidents do it how exactly is it enforced and 2) how that is promoting one religion over any other.

[PokerPacker]

2) how that is promoting one religion over any other.

It is promoting religion over non religion, which is discrimination based on religion or lack thereof.

[DCSaints_fan]

Since the NdoP doesn't have the force of law, I wouldn't think it would be strictly unconstitutional, just like the National Prayer Breakfast and having ministers lead Congress in prayer which has happened in the past.

[greenspandan]

What? Trying to figure out where this came from.

Of course if an atheist is a U.S. citizen then he or she is protected by the constitution. Just as those who believe the moon landing was a hoax. Or those who still believe the Earth is flat.

no, you missed my point. i am asking if you think the right to practice atheism is protected in the same way that christianity or any other religion is protected.

actually, it doesn't matter what you think: the answer is "yes, it is protected in exactly the same way Christianity is protected." the supreme court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the first amendment on numerous occasions. examples include Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), and many others. there is gobs of precedent in lower court rulings as well, from maine to texas.

the first amendment is rather straightforward. it prevents the federal government from establishing or favoring any religion over any other. since the courts have decided that for the purposes of the first amendment, atheism counts as a religion, then language such as "under God" is completely and inarguably unconstitutional, since such phrasing promotes most religions but flatly contradicts atheism.

for some reason, though, the vast majority of americans are happy to ignore this inconvenient fact, and treat people who point it out as a--holes or loons. (and anyone who says "yeah but who cares??" has a perfectly valid point as well)

in the end, i guess americans are lucky ... some religious sects, when they feel their beliefs are threatened, will blow people up or start wars ... be thankful that with athiests all you have to deal with are whiney messageboard posts.

[Hubbs]

Of course if an atheist is a U.S. citizen then he or she is protected by the constitution.

Citizenship doesn't have much to do with the Constitution.