Topic: Bush's "Faith" based plan ... Unconstitutional?
Saiyanman Benjita
...in 2012. This time, why not the worst?
Member # 122
posted
"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa."
That is the part where Bush is hovering dangerously close to. Would giving money be considering "participating in the affairs of any religious organization"? Would it be "Supporting any religious institution"?
I don't know. I really don't. I'm not going to condemn him for his actions, even though it is very risky - that being his first big order of business. If you give money for community action (soup kitchen, clothing, etc.), how are you to make sure that is where the money goes without "participating in the affairs"? And if you don't make sure the money is properly handled, it could be mishandled, therefore you could be "Supporting any religious institution"
The grey area surrounding the "separation of church and state" will win or lose the vote. However, it could easily be struk down by the Supreme Court. And if they do win by some miracle, this could be either a big win, or a devastating loss.
Personally (I don't care for Bush, but I'm trying to keep an open mind, since I have to stand him for 4 years), I don't think it'll pass. It hovers too close to the grey area, and I don't think even his own party can 100% back him on this one. Look for a huge loss, with only his unwavering support as the few votes for.
------------------ Though it will go without saying ten minutes into these preceedings, View Askew would like to state that this film is - from start to finish - a work of comedic fantasy, not to be taken seriously. To insist that any of what follows is insensitive or inflammatory is to miss our intentions and pass undue judgement, and passing judgement is reserved for God and God alone (this goes for you film critics too...) Just Kidding So please, before you think about hurting someone over this trifle of a film, remember God has a sense of humor. Just look at the platypus. Thank you and enjoy the show. P.S. We sincerely apologize to all platypus enthusiasts out there who are offended by that thoughtless comment about the platypus. We at View Askew respect the noble platypus and it is not our intention to slight these stupid creatures in any way. Thank you and enjoy the show.
posted
Personally, I think that if Jessie Jackson can shut up long enough for the REAL opinion of black people in general to come through, we'll find out that it has more support than you think. Polling data shows that they support it by a vast majority. If the Democrats shoot this one down, they're toast next time around. Unless, of course, Jessie Jackson finds a way to make it look like the GOP did it...
OK, here's my prediction: The Democrats screw up the bill horribly, so that it would never work. Or maybe McCain tacks on his stupid bill. Whatever. Somehow, the intent of the bill is destroyed. The GOP has to vote it down. Then the DNP, being the spinmeisters that they have become, blame US, claiming that THEY supported the program all along, but WE shot it down.
They'll do this. Why? Because it's their only chance for political survival: to lie. It always has been. Write this down, 'cause it's exactly what'll happen.
As for the religious aspects of the bill, you have to realize that it's not really giving money to a school, as such, but giving money to the FAMILY, with limited uses for it. Again, what's the problem with freedom of choice, when it comes to education? I don't give a darn about previous court decisions. The original wording of the Constitution is the higher law, as the Supreme Court would uphold.
Look at this another way: If John Overton High School was failing (no clue whether it is or not), I could get a voucher. I could then spend that voucher on homeschool supplies. Does homeschooling constitute a religious school? Not? You can't answer, because you can't know. Do only atheist homeschoolers get vouchers? You have to give the benefit of the doubt, and allow for all possible educational systems. Otherwise, you'll just end up right back with everyone in crappy public schools.
You've got to get this: nearly everything Bush proposed allows things to stay the way they are, IF YOU WANT THEM TO. It's all about increasing your choices, and your control over your own life. Why could anyone think this is a bad thing?
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
posted
In regards to Walz v. Tax Commission Of City Of New York (1970), one might read the grammar of that first sentance quoted as stating the soveriegn may not lend financial assistance to religious activity, which might not encompass actual assistance to the needy in communities. I would also point out that (if I'm not mistaken) that was from the dissent, not the holding (and for that matter, it's a dissent from a pretty absolutist justice who never really represented the median views of the country on this and other matters). In regards to the second quote, the judgement of the court was that the public's interest in lending money to religious institutions was a secular purpose that the schools were satisfying. Jackson's dissent pretty much (in my reading) came down to an objection that parents may educate, not religiously educate, their children with state money. It always seemed to me that the case law here is getting stuck in treating the issue catagorically when the reality of it all is a continuum of how much may parents religiously educate. A school that teaches all the core subjects at the same competency as secular schools but with one or two classes of theology I don't think will be the proximate cause of a rehash of the Thirty Years War here in the United States. But money being used to send kids to seminary is a bit too much. The question, to me at least at the moment, is whether we can allow some assistance as long as it is not so much that it poisons the impartiality of government to its citizens' faiths. The problem with a continuum-approach might be that it might require a vigilant court to oversee every new and changing facet of the program, something I doubt the court may inclined to do. So again, we're back where we started, one way or the other, all or none...
I would also point out that the cases I cited are more recent and that the quotes I used are from the majority opinions, giving them more weight in precedence than those before them.
------------------ "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
------------------ "We're just going to have a lot of work. ... Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment." ~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 31, 2001).]
posted
The original wording of the Constitution is the higher law, as the Supreme Court would uphold
The original wording? You mean, the stuff that says slavery is okay and a standing military is bad?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
Jeff, stop being an ass. You know darned well what I meant.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
The way I see it, on one hand, you profess that the original Constitution is and always shall be the true law of the land. On the other hand, you say that parts of the Constitution are not the law of the land.
I just don't get how on one hand you say it's the "highest law", and not subject to interpretation, when on the other hand you say that it obviously is.
So, no, I really don't understand what you mean.
I read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and I see that as meaning the Federal government will leave religion alone financially and every other way.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Saiyanman Benjita
...in 2012. This time, why not the worst?
Member # 122
posted
The way I see it, on one hand, you profess that the original Constitution is and always shall be the true law of the land. On the other hand, you say that parts of the Constitution are not the law of the land.
BTW, there isn't anything about slavery being good in the constitution. Slavery was allowed, but the constitution repealed it.
The Constitution is a fluid document in that it can be changed. Parts of it have been reversed or repealed. They remain part of the document, but are no longer the law of the land (see Prohibition).
------------------ Though it will go without saying ten minutes into these preceedings, View Askew would like to state that this film is - from start to finish - a work of comedic fantasy, not to be taken seriously. To insist that any of what follows is insensitive or inflammatory is to miss our intentions and pass undue judgement, and passing judgement is reserved for God and God alone (this goes for you film critics too...) Just Kidding So please, before you think about hurting someone over this trifle of a film, remember God has a sense of humor. Just look at the platypus. Thank you and enjoy the show. P.S. We sincerely apologize to all platypus enthusiasts out there who are offended by that thoughtless comment about the platypus. We at View Askew respect the noble platypus and it is not our intention to slight these stupid creatures in any way. Thank you and enjoy the show.
posted
if Jessie Jackson can shut up long enough for the REAL opinion of black people in general to come through, we'll find out that it has more support than you think
Er. This affects the Constitutionality of it ... how? EXACTLY! It doesn't! At all! You just like to throw up red-herrings and hope no one notices that it's got nothing to do with what we're talking about ... keep in mind that a vast majority of the black population is in favor of Gore being in office, not Bush, but a forced coup would be illegal too. Of course, you ignore this fact, because you assume that all blacks just follow whatever Democratic leaders say.
What you said above illustrates that perfectly. Um, hello? Jesse Jackson, Rev. Sharpton and even the NAACP hardly have a monopoly on African-Americans expressions. As far as your statement is concerned, I see no reason for any other basis of belief than that you honestly believe that the blacks in this nation are unable to speak or express themselves without Jesse Jackson. You know, for someone who pretends not to be racist, sometimes you do a really piss-poor job of it.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
"Jesse Jackson, Rev. Sharpton and even the NAACP hardly have a monopoly on African-Americans expressions." Don't forget Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam clones.
Yeah? Pretty close to it, if the media has anything to say about it.
Name some. Name some who have an appreciable following.
Colin Powell is ours, so name somebody else. Somebody who HASN'T been referred to by the majority black leadership as a 'sellout' or an 'Uncle Tom' the way Powell and Thomas were stigmatized.
------------------ "My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
posted
I've never heard anyone call Powell a "sell-out" ... can you document this?
Clarence Thomas? Oh, I see, so Bill Clinton is evil because he's improper with women, but you just choose to ignore Anita Hill? Typical. No, no, we're going to vote Billy-boy out because he tells bad cigar jokes and fucked an intern, but Thomas can force women to do naughty things to him, but it's okay, 'cuz he's OUR black man! Woo-hoo!
Hmmm, I dunno, who organized those 9% to vote for the Republicans? Gasp -- could it be that, I dunno-they thought for themselves? Oh my GOD! The concept! Thinking black men -- what'll be next? A gay black man elected President by the Republican Party? And, wow, wouldn't this mean that some of the blacks who voted for the Democratic Party did so by thinking for themselves? Not if you listen to a Republican.
And since when do you believe the press, Mr. "The Liberal Controlled Media?"
The issue isn't black leaders on the Republican side as you seem to suggest. In fact, the issue is that striking out like this in the hopes that you can convince people that the majority of the black population is controlled by Jackson, Sharpton, etc. What, black individuals can't think for themselves? If you listen to Republican hype, 91% of the black population (in other words, those who traditionaly vote Democratic) can't.
[rant]Again, with Jackson, you tend to forget that the Republican party has done little to recruit black voters. In fact, the Democratic Party isn't much better. Jackson energized the black and minority vote -- you ever heard of the Rainbow Coalition? I get sick and tired of hearing people complain about black activists. See how'd you'd act if YOUR people had been first held as slaves, and then treated as second-class citizens until only very recently. Of course people don't like to look at it like this, who blames them?
Jackson ran in the Democratic Primaries in '84 and '88. He toured inner-city high schools, churches, factory towns in decline, and visited striking workers. He has always worked to register new voters, and specificly targeted groups with high-portions of non-voters: minorities, young people, unemployed, the poor, and tried to form a coalition with feminists, enviornmentalists, and others. Bitch all you want about black leadership, Jackson and the others have earned it by reaching out to those who other wise don't give a rat's ass about either party. When has a Republican politician ever done that?
Now, yes, you can make the point, "hey, they only follow Jackson and the others because there are no viable alternatives!" Well, then, fine give them some and stop bitching about how unfair it is that minorities stick with a party that actually went out and stirred up the vote! That actually went out and WORKED for their vote!
You want the minority vote? Prove to 'em that you deserve it, and don't fucking bitch about how blacks are so dumb as to be scared by Democratic slur campaigns, and don't pretend nominating minorities to high positions will change that overnight. It won't. You can paint an old '43 Buick and make it look brand new, but it'll still run like it's a '43 Buick. Personally, I'd rather have a new Eclipse that needs a wash. Thank you. [/end rant]
Now, the original point was,
How does the support of the black population make the Faith plan any more or less Constitutional? It doesn't. Thank you.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 31, 2001).]
posted
All I'm saying about 'black leadership' is that Jackson et al get ALL the media coverage. All of it.
The question of the legitimacy of Anita Hill's testimony is another issue entirely. Suffice it to say that although I believed it at the outset, but I find it suspect now. (Kind of like that guy they brought in as a last-minute surprise witness against Ashcroft, but didn't tell anybody that he was a long-time Hillary staffworker and about as unbiased as Bob Jones, or the guy Tipper's PMRC brough in to testify to congress about music, who they called a 'music expert' but who was actually a reverend)
Politics shouldn't be a 'recruitment' thing. People shouldn't be that self-centered. But sadly, they are.
There's plenty of reasons to vote Democratic, but you'd find that the biggest reason is "my parents did." Most of the other reasons are 40 years old. The remaining reasons are entitlements.
People claim the Democrats are THE big force for social justice, but there's not a whole lot to that concept. It was people like Charlton Heston, who marched side-by-side with Sidney Poitier in the Civil Rights protests in the 60's, (bet you didn't know THAT!) who are Republicans now. It was Southern Democrats, mostly, who supported the continuation of segregation, especially George "Segregation now, Segregation forever!" Wallace. PEOPLE, of ALL walks of life, agreeing and acting together, create social justice, not political parties.
I notice you mention slavery AGAIN. Isn't that old saw getting tired? It's been almost 150 years. And the Civil Rights struggle? We've had a whole generation grow into adulthood since then. It's not that, either. You take a good, long, look at the 'gimmie' culture of today, and you'll see what it is.
------------------ "My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
posted
I see you fail to mention that 40 years ago the Republican party had a very large and VERY liberal membership. That membership moved over to the Democratic Party.
Or Kevin Phillips ... 'member him? One of Nixon's staffers. Wrote a rather famous letter to Nixon. Gotta love what it says. He urged Nixon to turn the GOP into the party of the "unpoor, unblack, uncool" ...
You may not be aware of this, but Nixon listened to Phillips. Now, remember, the Democratic Party was sort of in trouble -- lots of interest groups and all. Wedge issues helped Nixon, and he and other Republicans generated powerful national symbols and cried about how Democrats violated 'em (something you dudes are doing to date, BTW). Against anti-war protestors, Nixon promised "peace with honor." Against the claims of the civil rights movement, Republicans slowed down more progress on achieving racial equality by reducing aid to cities and SLOWING policies aimed at school integration. To combat feminists, gays, and rebellious college students, the Republicans preach about "law and order and family values."
And you're telling me the GOP is interested in promoting equal rights? Maybe. But you'll have to prove it, got any recent examples? Perhaps I should say the Republican Party will have to prove it, something they haven't done yet. And, no offense, but whatever Charleton Heston and Sydney Poitier's party affiliation, it won't make me believe in that party affiliation anymore than an ad they're in would make me run out and buy whatever was being advertised. You seem to forget that the majority of civil rights leaders in this nation remain with the Democratic Party.
Speaking of which, when did the Republican Party do anything to protect the rights of homosexuals? Just wondering.
But, back to the ORIGINAL TOPIC:
How does the (possible) mass-support of Bush's FAITH program make it any more (or less?) Constitutional? Any answer, Omega?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
------------------ "Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni." (That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner
quote:It was people like Charlton Heston, who marched side-by-side with Sidney Poitier in the Civil Rights protests in the 60's, (bet you didn't know THAT!)
Sure I did! It seem that every time he gets up to seechify about how good guns are he tells me all that over again.
In the words of the Western film, he's establishin' his bona fides. (Richard Boone to John Wayne in Big Jake)
I thought all them Hollywood types was liberal butt-in-skies who's mere presence, rakish good looks, and jaunty smiles was enough to warp the minds of midwestern conservative youth. Warp them enough to make them throw away their fur coats and stop eating pork products. If only Lisa Simpson hadn't talked to Paul and Linda McCartney on the roof of the Quicky Mart....
Oh, the Pork Advisory Council is going to have a fit...it's the other white meat you know...
That is until Heston walks in a march...then it good activism. It was and is a great cause (I don't happen to see the Civil Rights movement as 'over') so don't get me wrong there, I just see it as somewhat paradoxical is all. I guess it all depends on your view of the cause as to whether celeb involvement is going to sway you from your easy chair and out onto the picket line or into Trader Joes for bean curd.
Not really much of a rant...if I didn't like the part about the Pork Advisory Council and the rakish good looks thing I might have lopped much of this off. Certainly what those more to the left would call the 'Lexus Activism' (the save the whales sticker on the back of the sport ute) of some celebs is rather disingenious.
My goodnesss, I feel like I channeling Sol's indecisive meandering approach to posting.
Must stop.
------------------ "We're just going to have a lot of work. ... Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment." ~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited February 01, 2001).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
