"The total passion for the total height"
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's newWho's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 11 guests online.
Online usersPollWhat should the government do about ailing financial institutions? Nothing, except to back off and get out—as any Objectivist knows, intervention is treating the disease with the disease 83% Intervene judiciously—enough to avert a catastrophe that is otherwise imminent 3% Intervene massively—as it's doing 3% Nationalize the whole economy and be done with it. Bring on the USSA! 1% Something else (specify) 11% Total votes: 80
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
America and God: A Theocracy in the Making... Submitted by jtgagnon on Fri, 2006-06-16 17:13.
When the founding fathers declared the blossoming American nation to be “free and independent” they sought to create a limited government that existed to serve “we the people,” namely to protect the country’s citizens in their individual pursuits of life, liberty and happiness. The First Amendment of the Constitution enshrined the right of religious freedom – the right of every individual to live as he or she deemed fit, whether Catholic, Jew, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, or Atheist. This idea – a secular government protecting individuals and their right of choice – was daring and novel, and structured a government that led, inevitably, to unfathomed success. Since the very founding of the American nation, however, such individual freedom existed as an affront to those who declared allegiance to the opposing view that individual freedom should be limited by religious edict, or, simply stated: that it was impossible to rightly govern “without God and the Bible.” While this tension has ebbed and flowed over the years, the attempts by various religious movements to “return the country to God” have been a constant in the landscape of American history. Well into the first decade of the 21st century, the country once again finds itself in the middle of a disturbingly well-orchestrated attack on individual freedom by religious conservatives who aim for – and have been succeeding at – legislating religion. While this is “nothing new,” it comes at a time of particular vulnerability in the American psyche and therefore must be vigorously fought – in essence, war must be declared on religious influence in government if we are to remain a wholly free society. Indeed, the rights of the irreligious are as protected by the Constitution as those of the religious – and when this is no longer acknowledged, the inevitable decline into theocracy begins.
( categories: )
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
Declare war
I aggree JT we need to declare war on religious influence in government.I did years aggo and have been fighting what seems like a lone battle for some time.
RE: Commerce Clause
I'd heartily disagree that the scope of the commerce clause was properly applied in Wickard v. Filburn. It expansively increased federal power - indeed, not one federal law was declared unconstitutional under the commerce clause from 1937 until 1995. The law re: the commerce clause can be very simply stated: Congress could regulate any activity if there was a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Of course, "any activity" is overbroad and no where is "substantial" defined. Thank goodness for the Court's decision in 1995 in US. V Lopez, which marked a shift away from this ridiculous doctrine.
So, all that being said, is an amendment needed? Perhaps. I'm not willing to go that far yet...but certainly, there is no doubt that Congress has too much power.
As far as your stance on the BoR, let me be clear: they act against the government (state and fed)...not against the individual. Why you continue to argue that this shouldn't be the case is beyond me (and beyond the thoughts of many of our founding fathers). I understand your concerns re: federalism and the usurpation of state power, but lets not be silly.
"Better to fight for something than live for nothing."
Actually, Rick...for the sake of historical accuracy...
It should be noted that the states didn't create anything. The "people" did. Your argument is an old one...and one which has been proven time and again to be wrong.
Adam, I completely agree with you re: the Commerce Clause.
-JTG
"Better to fight for something than live for nothing."
Historical accuracy
In the main article John wrote "The First Amendment of the Constitution enshrined the right of religious freedom – the right of every individual to live as he or she deemed fit..." It did not. It preserved to the states the authority to regulate (or not) religion. It was not until the passage of the 14th Amendment (actually, not even then, but later when the Supreme Court so interpreted it) that the BOR was claimed to apply to the states.
Adam, the states are not subsidiary governments. The states created the federal government. You have it backwards. Of course, since its creation the federal government has been constantly usurping more and more power. The states didn't realize that their creation contained the seeds of their own destruction.
The commerce clause doesn't need to be corrected with yet another amendment (shades of Ptolomy!). It was properly understood and applied until Wicksteed v Filburn (sp?).
Ross, Rick
Competitive federalism does not give subsidiary governments leave to violate the rights of individuals; nothing can. That the "Commerce Clause" has been used to excuse the violation of individual rights by the Federal government is a separate problem that may require another amendment to correct.
I'm sure Rick's not arguing
I'm sure Rick's not arguing for violations of rights but for the principle of competitive federalism--that is, the ability of states to differentiate themselves so as to attract population or capital. That principle has been violated by the Feds via the Commerce Clause, for instance.
Adam...
Well said. While the incorporation doctrine (BoR incorporated by the 14th amend) has been controversial, I continue to be befuddled just as to why people object to having the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well to the Fed.
Rick: Not sure if you're advocating religious oppression by the states. I hope not.
The issue of incorporation has - however controversial - been long dead as a legal issue.
-JTG
"Better to fight for something than live for nothing."
1st and 14th
Rick,
"When the 1st Amendment was passed..." yes, this is true of the entire Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10.) But the 14th Amendment extends the whole Bill of Rights to the states.
Objectively, safeguarding individual rights against violations by subsidiary governments is a legitimate function of any federal government.
The scope of the 1st
When the 1st Amendment was passed it was understood to apply only to the Federal government. (That's why it says "Congress shall make no law..." It placed no restrictions on the actions of the various States so that each of them, individually, could set their own relationship to religion.
Rex
This post must have been written with you in mind....