Proposed Constitutional Amendments

[rachaella]

Since there has recently been quite a lot of media attention about the proposed amendment to the constitution to "protect the sanctity of marriage" I thought I'd start a thread where we could all post some even better ideas for amendments, to "protect the sanctity of marriage", or for whatever!

What about outlawing adultery? How about an amendment to make divorces illegal? How about an amendment abolishing long waits at the DMV? Or at least, providing more comfortable seating and some entertainment for the wait.

[chmara]

To me, it is a shame more people do not know that the separation of church and state in there for a reason. At this point I still have a choice called "freedom FROM religion" if I am willing to pay the price.

I recently raised the social price of "my soul" by declaring I am NOT agnostic -- as FOR ME -- I have an answer that the existence of a god is not possible. Now my religious friends really mourn for my alleged soul - rather than wasting precious conversation on it.

My analysis of my position started the year they (congress) changed the pledge of allegience -- as I found it contradictory (even in 6th grade) to have a nation "under god" (whose god?) that can have "liberty (to not believe - that would be precluded in the pledge itself) and justice (whose commandements guide and how many commandements) for ALL.

I got beat up by neighbor kids a few times when I refused to add the words myself -- a tradition I stubbornly continue today. It is surprising I have friends that believe ourt FOUNDING FATHERS wrote the pledge (under god) with the constitution. Not much scholarship there.

Say -- think of this -- if man and woman can be married -- how about Polygamy? And of course since divorce calls for excommunication for Roman Catholics -- that must be outlawed under the defense of marriage and the pro0osed amendment.

Oh yes -- then to, if law is biblical -- a widow MUST remarry -- preferably to a relative of her husbands -- even if it is his drunken, or saintly brother --- even, then too, if his brother is a Catholic Priest. If the priest refuses then who is the sinner -- the widow for her husband's death -- or the priest for maintining his vows. And who would the feds send to jail on that one????

Keep religion out of government -- and government out of religion. (Tax em all - or tax em none.)

Now how about a constitutional amendment that to be a voting citizen you MUST NOT be ignorant????

[Brown]

This is as good a thread as any for the following quotation, which can be found here. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was worried about the potential for violence because of the controversial marriages, and offered the following on "Meet the Press":

Quote:

All of a sudden we see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing. The next thing we know is there's injured or there's dead people.

After quoting Schwarzenegger, the report adds, "There has been no violence associated with the San Francisco marriages."

[magnum54]

How will opposite sex be determined? This is the major flaw in an amendment to our constitution that would define marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. First of all there is no way to define what is a man. If this is to be the sex at 1 month of gestation, then there would be no men. If this were to be determined by the genitalia at birth the sex could still not be clearly defined as there are people born with mixed genitalia. Known as Hermaphrodites, they have a range of genitalia from mostly male with ovaries to mostly female with a penis. Nature can't even clearly define all humans as to whether they are male or female. But this should not be a reason for the majority to discriminate against all that are not clearly defined. Or even worse is the medical mutilation of the genitalia to appear either male of female.

Maybe the test could be conducted on the psychological makeup of the couple. If they conformed to what is expected of a man and a woman, they could be issued a marriage certificate. But, then we would be back to allowing gay people to marry. Should marriage only be allowed between breeding couples of humans? Of course not, you are quick to recognize that procreation is a very small part of marriage or the bond between two humans. Even the sexual relationship plays a small part in a relationship. For some married couples there is no sex.

Maybe the test will be performed by testing the estrogen levels or testosterone levels at the time of marriage. Still not fool proof, because some men have high estrogen levels in there youth. What then will be the test? Could it be done just by observation? Would we have those among us appointed to certify which sex a person is assigned by the government? What of a person that changes their sex via surgery and hormone replacement therapy? Would there then be a requirement that there has to be a degree of manhood prior to marriage?

Let's see what that would entail. First we would define at which age the test would be required as men take on masculinity throughout their aging. Let's say that the test would require a specified amount of hair on the chest. Another requirement could be the size of the testicles. Then another requirement would be the amount of ejaculate. Then the degree of how much the brow protrudes on the forehead. Too little and your missing the identity of masculinity. Then we must also sound like a man, with a deep and resonating voice. If you are following along, then by now you are probably wondering how many of the people you know that have their marriage disqualified. Would you be disqualified from marrying? I will bet that G.W. Bush would be disqualified from marriage.

[MLynn]

Do we need more amendments to our precious Constitution, especially a BAD idea one like GW wants. If we don't have life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness, if we don't have our Bill of Rights, we are scre**d.

[rachaella]

Quote:

Originally posted by MLynn
Do we need more amendments to our precious Constitution, especially a BAD idea one like GW wants. If we don't have life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness, if we don't have our Bill of Rights, we are scre**d.

Agreed. Our one attempt at using the Constitution to take rights away was somewhat of a failure.

[chillzero]

How about ensuring adequate protection for abused spouses and children,

or adequate punishment and reparation for abusive spouses and parents,

or ensuring that one spouse cannot heave all their debt onto the other on leaving the marriage,


before interfering with a low-impact-on-society, none-of-anyone-else's-business, celebration of love?

[rachaella]

Quote:

Originally posted by cabby
How about ensuring adequate protection for abused spouses and children,

or adequate punishment and reparation for abusive spouses and parents,

or ensuring that one spouse cannot heave all their debt onto the other on leaving the marriage,


before interfering with a low-impact-on-society, none-of-anyone-else's-business, celebration of love?

Sounds good to me.

[Schizobunny]

Personally I don't think amendments should be added that have anything to do with marriage because marriage has to do with one's personal life and the government has no right to be getting in to that. As for outlawing divorce I don't think that is fair because the constitution says life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. How can someone be happy if they are married to someone they despise? As for outlawing adulting the same argument applies. People should be able to do what they want and if their spouses disagree with it they can leave.

[rachaella]

Quote:

Originally posted by Schizobunny
Personally I don't think amendments should be added that have anything to do with marriage because marriage has to do with one's personal life and the government has no right to be getting in to that. As for outlawing divorce I don't think that is fair because the constitution says life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. How can someone be happy if they are married to someone they despise? As for outlawing adulting the same argument applies. People should be able to do what they want and if their spouses disagree with it they can leave.

Exactly. I was just bringing up those two examples as things that would have a real impact on the so-called "sanctity of marriage" but most people, including most who support this ammendment would be radically against, probably because many of them have been divorced and some of them may have committed adultery one or more times.

[Kopji]

Disbelief in a Deity represents a harmful flaw in the proper functioning of society. While people should be allowed to opt out of a religion or belief in a Higher Power as a matter of personal choice, it is considered a crime to disseminate these errant and terrorist-like ideas in public forums.

[Yahweh]

How about a constitutional amendment making forbidding intervention of modern medicine until it is fully established that the entire speil alternative treatments are inaffective...

We'll have this whole country addicted to Homeopathic remedies yet!

[rachaella]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh
How about a constitutional amendment making forbidding intervention of modern medicine until it is fully established that the entire speil alternative treatments are inaffective...

We'll have this whole country addicted to Homeopathic remedies yet!

I've been considering marketing my tap water as a homeopathic remedy. I could sell it at a real bargain price too, only $5 per ounce.

[chmara]

Are not many Bush Jr. supporters the same troglidytes who worked hard to defeat the ERA because (horror of horrors) they could not then discriminate against homosexuals (of course they would never discriminate against women) and got noisy enough to scare state legislatures into letting it expire?????

Maybe Penn is right. Maybe we need to be brash, discourteous and even rebellious in demanding the people who want to control our lives quit screwing around with the things in ouir constitution that do not allow them to become Calvanists, Roundheads or Grand Inquisitors in charge of a population that had no say in their rise to power..

To me, this too is a RELIGIOUS issue. If the government (via marriage licenses, divorce legislation, etc.) is going to be a party to the contract of adults who choose to domicile together (and the right of privacy behind home doors without a warrant) must not government apply that contractual power to all those who wish it, regardless of age, race, sex. To do otherwise is to impress a christian value on an otherwise faith neutral constitution and nation.

OK, so these arguments did not work for the Mormons and their fight to maintain Polygamy. Even today Colorado City, AZ is a throwback that religious practice and still flaunts the law. BTW, when passed, and when the Mormons "accepted it" by manifesto, allowed Utah to become a state.

This amendment idea also ties in with the push against a woman's choice of abortion and also a specific religious view determining the age of life in an even non-viable fetus, by allowing prosecution of someone who harms a pregnant woman's fetus, treating it as murder. By extension, could this not be the womanm herself, committing a federal crime using illicit drugs - and aborting a fetus???

In the realm of wisdom on these deep issues, I feel neither Congress nor the religious have the skill or will to analyze unbiased information in order to legislate on them with any real world thought.

It is time for those of us who have taken our liberty for granted in the past to first, wake up to the danger of erosion of liberty, then to be firm, to be loud and to be active in our voice of discontent. We have to realize that just use humor to prevent the marginalization of our views, and not being heard will not work. We must not allow ourselves to think compromise on our part will stop these vocally religious fuindamentalist groups from systematically removing our freedoms, liberties and ability to think clearly based upon real world needs -- particularly as they newspeak the data and ignore information as idealogically unsound. Compromise with conscience only works with those who earnestly consider matters and do not have their conscience dictated to them or are dogmaticly blind.

It is time to stand up and be counted -- shot at on the baricades of Liberty -- to suffer (or revel in) excommunication from non-thinking christian dogma or organization and shunning by its members.

As like: it is time to loudly and forthrighty embrace a position of loud liberty, hearty fellowship with true members of ALL FAITHS that allow the dignity of man to overcome the dogma of primitive society and its superstitions . It is time, not to just talk or write to politicians, but to become such ourselves if we deserve liberty. My must get active in the local parties and groom a generation of free thinkers who can undo the inroads that the feudal religious and uncaring Baronial corporate believers have done to our noble experiment in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We must let out voices be heard in the media, door to door, in coffee houses (particularly Starbucks) at parties, in the PTA and anywhere we see dogma trying to cruise over the body of liberty.

Yes, the students in Les Mis all died in the real world and the liberty they were fighting for did not start for another 20 years. Yes, John Brown guessed wrong about support of his anti-slave movement and his rebellion. No Jefferson was not a saint, but he sure as heck did not want religion in the constitution.

It is of great interest that no one has compared this push on dogmatic beliefs in oprder to include "biblical religious concepts" in the constitution lets us go down the path to an Iranian style election.

[rachaella]

Chmara, I wholehartedly agree!

I am a member of the ACLU, have written my senators and representatives regarding women's right to choose and the marriage amendment and am doing my best to find a way to join the March on Washington for women's reproductive choice, but I really feel like I should be doing more. We really do need to stop keeping our opinions to ourselves and vocally fight the religious fundamentalists. But in my experience, these are not the only people who can have ignorant opinions. Even people who seem to have reasonably informed opinions about other things still seem to hold onto these bigotries when it comes to gays and lesbians. Sometimes it seems like we're up against too much!

[michaellee]

chmara and rachaella:

The chances of a Constitutional Amendment defining "marriage" becoming a reality are between zero and zero. Nothing but pure political diatribe in a presidential election year. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution requires 2/3 of both houses or 2/3 of all state legislatures concurring to just convene an amendment convention. "Marriage" amendment? 2/3? Not going to happen. Even if the convention were to come to fruition, it would then take 3/4 of both houses or of the states to concur before ratification. Once again, pure political b.s.

Constitutional amendments aside, this does not mean that I believe this issue to be a non-important one; just as I agree with chmara concerning the lack of interest in, respect and desire to keep the precious liberties our forefathers so painstakingly laid out for us.

I admire those who stand up and fight for their rights, and the passion and understanding of just how important it is to do so, or risk losing the liberty most seem to be unaware of these days, at least in my observations. The marriage, homosexual, and religious issues mentioned here, however, are but a small piece of the entire picture.. albeit topics that do bring out the emotions and intolerance in some who feel either the Government is not doing enough or is overstepping its authority. I fail to see any real threat at this time in America any more so than throughout our history concerning the opposing views and vocal rhetoric so familiar to topics such as these.

Just as rachaella cries out against homophobic intolerance, she fears erosion of a woman's right to reproductive choice, but at the same time, seemingly favors government to recognize same sex marriages. Thus the reason for the conflict; you wish to not keep your opinions to yourselves and feel you must verbally fight the right wing fundies. While claiming blatant bigotry on their part, you unknowingly are playing the same game they started but neither side controls--and never will because this is exactly the situation those atop Capitol hill want the vocal elements of the electorate to be in. One where elections are won and lost over that "swing" vote based on these unsolvable by government issues.

Diverting the public's attention from the issues the politicians do have some control over is old news, but for some reason thus far the media and the public have seem to forgotten or maybe just want to forget about national security, the economy and taxes.

Maybe both candidates, Bush and Kerry, are purposely not speaking about platforms and issues because regardless of which is elected, there are certain things guaranteed to occur in the next five years: Even larger increases in annual federal spending and revenue collection; the National Debt will increase by more than $1.4 trillion the next 5 years, and these are low estimates.

The Fed estimates revenues of $13.1 trillion, outlays of $14.5 trillion over the next 5 years.

To put this in perspective, from 1974- 2003, in 20 years of time, total Federal revenue was $30.6 trillion, outlays $33.9 trillion, total deficit of $3.3 trillion.

And the public is battling it out over whether homosexuals can legally marry? It is, and should be forever a NON-FEDERAL government issue. When I married, I don't recall having to obtain a FEDERAL marriage license! Not to downgrade the aforementioned issues, but folks, this country, in a very short period of time, even with avoiding further attacks, is economically spiraling out of control, and the only solution on the books right now is to....... INCREASE REVENUE, INCREASE SPENDING, INCREASE DEFICITS. This cannot continue.

It is time to hold all political candidates and elected officials up in the media spotlight and ask the serious questions now being so cleverly avoided. All I read and hear about is what government program, service or entitlement should be thrown at the public trough simply to get elected. How is our current medical care and, education system just to name a few? Soon, our politicians will not fear voting in massive tax increases because there will simply not be any alternative, short of collapse or revolt. But at least some of you might be able to legally marry or abort an unwanted child.

[tracer]

Quote:

Originally posted by magnum54
How will opposite sex be determined? This is the major flaw in an amendment to our constitution that would define marriage as a contract between a man and a woman.

I don't think this will be a problem. State courts have had to deal with the issue of transexual/intersex/same-sex marriages for a while now, and I'm sure the Federal Courts (if such an amendment should pass) will fall back on the established case law in this matter.

[chmara]

Tracer - I find it interesting that many state courts have found that even though one partner has had a "sex change" with trans-gender treatment and surgery -- a marriage is still considered binding -- and children are held as equal parentage and custody.

[Outcast]

I would rather see the legal process gone through to amend the Constitution, rather than some judge "discovering" the definition of marriage in the Constitution. If judges can discover nonexisting legal concepts in the Constitution, such as separation of church and state, then it is only a matter of time before one of them finds a legal definition of marriage.

[rachaella]

And its really crazy when those judges find stuff like equal rights for everybody in there! Those crazy judges. In fact, let's just take whatever societal problem that conservatives have a problem with and make an end run around the judicial system by amending the consitution! In fact, lets do away with the constitutional democracy altogether and hire some christian clergy to run the country. I know this religious system has been working well for some islamic countries.

[Outcast]

Quote:

Originally posted by rachaella
And its really crazy when those judges find stuff like equal rights for everybody in there! Those crazy judges. In fact, let's just take whatever societal problem that conservatives have a problem with and make an end run around the judicial system by amending the consitution! In fact, lets do away with the constitutional democracy altogether and hire some christian clergy to run the country. I know this religious system has been working well for some islamic countries.

No point in doing that, we already have liberal judges running the country with a total disregard for the law. An amendment is useless anyway, the liberal courts will make it mean what they want and not what it says.

[chmara]

I always find it intertesting when humane judgement, considering things like the right to privacy -- especially in thought (as in separation of church and state -- for very good reasons) is considered "liberal."

Lincoln was liberal after faced with the political inhumanity of slavery and humans as property. I do not want a government that can remove my humanity because I am not a christian. Just as I would not want to live in a place where I had no private right to belief -- even if I was a Muslim.

BTW -- checks and balances in the constitution are there to allow anidealistic and even egalitarian overview overview to to be thought of.

And speaking of liberal -- just how liberal was the US supreme court in deciding our last presidential election? Expeditious yes, Liberal, no.

[69dodge]

Quote:

Originally posted by Outcast
If judges can discover nonexisting legal concepts in the Constitution, such as separation of church and state [ ... ]

Well, the first amendment does say,<blockquote>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [ ... ].</blockquote>How do you interpret that?

[Outcast]

Quote:

Originally posted by 69dodge
Well, the first amendment does say,<blockquote>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [ ... ].</blockquote>How do you interpret that?

Just like it is written, Congress (the Federal Government) shall make no law. 10th Amendment says the States can make laws respecting the "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......"

[teddygrahams]

Quote:

Originally posted by Outcast
Just like it is written, Congress (the Federal Government) shall make no law. 10th Amendment says the States can make laws respecting the "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......"

Even it it does, the 14th says they can't.

[Outcast]

Quote:

Originally posted by teddygrahams

Even it it does, the 14th says they can't.

No it doesn't the 14th had nothing to do with religion

[rachaella]

Quote:

Originally posted by Outcast
Just like it is written, Congress (the Federal Government) shall make no law. 10th Amendment says the States can make laws respecting the "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......"

Can you point me to where it says this? Maybe I'm missing it.

From what I can find it says:


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by rachaella


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The "power" of promulgating an official religion is not delegated to the United States (in fact, it's specifically prohibited via the Bill of Rights), and therefore, if not prohibited to the states is reserved to the states.

However, the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment is to extend the prohibitions contained in the Bill of Rights to the states as well, under the "equal protection" clause (section 1 : "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws").

So, prior to 1868, it would have been legal for a state to establish an official religion;it is no longer. Sorry, Outcast.

[rachaella]

Quote:

Originally posted by drkitten


The "power" of promulgating an official religion is not delegated to the United States (in fact, it's specifically prohibited via the Bill of Rights), and therefore, if not prohibited to the states is reserved to the states.

However, the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment is to extend the prohibitions contained in the Bill of Rights to the states as well, under the "equal protection" clause (section 1 : "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws").

So, prior to 1868, it would have been legal for a state to establish an official religion;it is no longer. Sorry, Outcast.

Thank you for the clarification!

[chmara]

How often do we forget the section that reserves the rest to the PEOPLE.

I have just finished re-reading the many of the speeches of FDR -- considered by many to be a president who "twisted" the constitution. In his presentation he respected those rights granted to the INDIVIDUAL while working toward the welfare of the whole more paramount than the rights of the economically powerful.

Need I also note, that the powerful have always been able to purchase voice, and the religious have a pulpit -- while the individual -- has had to struggle to be heard UNLESS it is in court.

The framers had no quarrel with a belief in God -- but sincerely feared the implementation of a state by those who claim to speak for God -- in and/or out of any written context such as the bible, koran or other system of morality that would demand blind obedience.

[Soapy Sam]

Why not just put all women in a common pool, to which all men have shared breeding rights?

Life was so much simpler when women knew their place.

Why are you all looking at me like that?

[chmara]

I am sorry, Soapy Sam, that you would take that attitude. After all, only men of breeding and intellegence should be allowed in any such pool. Maybe too, it would be a good idea -- to surpress rebellion in the ranks -- that the women, so pooled, would be the ones to set the criteria on intellegence and breeding, no?

In a more reflective light, however -

Yes, it did take an amendment to get women the right to vote (even in Florida where votes apparently do not count anyway) and three amendments to correctly count those of colour in the voting process (although Mississippi took a while to catch on.)

If indeed those who wrote the constitutiopn were "Christian" it would be still a requirement to count those of colour as only part men - and women not at all.

The morality of man has often grown in spite of religion, and has been documented in political documents like the constitution of the United States, not the Christian Bible, Koran, Upanishads, or other works or religious morality, ne: history.

[Outcast]

Quote:

Originally posted by drkitten


The "power" of promulgating an official religion is not delegated to the United States (in fact, it's specifically prohibited via the Bill of Rights), and therefore, if not prohibited to the states is reserved to the states.

However, the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment is to extend the prohibitions contained in the Bill of Rights to the states as well, under the "equal protection" clause (section 1 : "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws").

So, prior to 1868, it would have been legal for a state to establish an official religion;it is no longer. Sorry, Outcast.

It may be that way now, but it wasn't so until 1947. 79 years after the 14th amendment was written. Everson v. Board of Education

Quote:

In 1947, in a case named Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, passed almost a hundred years before in 1868, prohibited State and local governments from establishing a religion. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment that supposedly imposed this prohibition was "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law;"

Since the text of the Fourteenth Amendment did not refer to religion or churches, the Supreme Court had to invent a concept to accomplish this prohibition. They called it the "incorporation doctrine."

[Suezoled]

Quote:

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Why not just put all women in a common pool, to which all men have shared breeding rights?

Life was so much simpler when women knew their place.

Why are you all looking at me like that?

Sam: what about those who can't breed? Or who have a known genetic issue?

Yes, I know it's a joke. don't mind me.

[Suezoled]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kopji
Disbelief in a Deity represents a harmful flaw in the proper functioning of society. While people should be allowed to opt out of a religion or belief in a Higher Power as a matter of personal choice, it is considered a crime to disseminate these errant and terrorist-like ideas in public forums.

I guess we're supposed to ignore the fact that many wars and atrocious activities were carried out by those inspired by the idea they are divinely blessed? I guess believing in a god and doing terrible things is far more comforting than not believing in a "higher power" and living a good life.

I'm sad Kopji. Hold me.

[gnome]

Quote:

Originally posted by Outcast
It may be that way now, but it wasn't so until 1947. 79 years after the 14th amendment was written. Everson v. Board of Education

It took court decisions to apply the rest of the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Are you opposed to that too? Or are you cherry-picking the rights that you have a problem with?

How about the Second Amendment, for example... is it "liberals" changing the meaning of the Constitution, when a court rules that the Second amendment applies to the States as well?

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome


It took court decisions to apply the rest of the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Are you opposed to that too? Or are you cherry-picking the rights that you have a problem with?

It's worse than that. He didn't even get the case right. The case that he really wants to cite is Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Quoting from Everson: "The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , 63 S.Ct. 870, 872, 146 A.L.R. 81, commands that a state 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'") And, of course, this goes back to Gitlow v. New York and the entire question of the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

However, Murdock was a case in which the church won their side of the case (it was found that the First Amendment required that Pennsylvania not mandate licences for JWs to go door-to-door). So, yes, he's cherry-picking not only from the bill of rights, but also from case law. He wants his church to have the freedoms granted in the bill of rights, but none of the limitations that come with it.

Funny how it's only "judicial activism" if you disagree with it, isn't it?

[chmara]

Hopefully not too far off topic -- but did anyone else catch our (U.S.) "esteemed" president's comment about whether he consulted his father on invading Iraq? His answer -- his dad was not the father he consulted. Does this mean he prayed us into invading Iraq on the pretense of finding weapons of mass destruction that "might," in his apocolyptic dreams, be sold to terrorists?

And calling the invasion of Afghanistan a "crusade" shows either a sharp misunderstanding of history or a religious underpinning of his administration that is specifically prohibited (and might, in my mind, be a high crime or misdemeanor) in our form of government.

(BTW, I do think the invasion of Afghanistan was warranted because of its Al Queda Support in the attack of 9-11 and violations of human rights it was exporting over its borders.)

We are, as a people, constitutionally bound to oppose the mixing of Religion and Government in our own solemn jurisdictions. We may even be morally bound to promote that idea across the world, as we recognize the evils found in men who demand total fealty because they claim that they (and their government) are doing god's will.

It is well nigh impossible to change an individual person's "beliefs" because they do not (and cannot, without a lot of thought and experience) respond to the opposition of facts and evidence. Changing opinion is another story.

And, I am sorry to say that the US has lost a concept (probably during the McCarthy era), that of "loyal opposition." Along with this lost concept -- "believers" of unsubstantiated, contradictory or religious ideas, dogmas and processes -- seemed alsso to have lost the art of true compromise. They seem bent on doggedly turning American Politics into a win-lose situation, instead of the "win-win" situation of the thoughtful and evolutionary Republic as envisioned in the Constitution and its amendments.