Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

Maddow on North Carolina versus Atheists

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

I’m glad that this issue has finally been elevated to the level of evening political news with Rachel Maddow. North Carolina is one of a handful of other states with active constitutional prohibitions that prohibit atheists from holding public office. This blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution (Article 6 and the First Amendment)1 by creating a religious test for public office has not been the focus of the news, probably because prior holders of public office in those states either lie about their beliefs (pandering to the heavy religious pressure of the Bible Belt) or are religious themselves. However, recently, critics of a new Asheville city council member Cecil Bothwell have threatened to try to remove him from office because he’s an atheist.

Here’s Maddow’s inquiry and discussion with ACLU North Carolina Legal Director Katherine Parker:

  1. Article 6 prohibits religious tests for public office and the First Amendment prohibits establishment (and it can be argued that by requiring state officials to be of a particular religion, the state is establishing a religious preference [<]

Virginia Referendum to Reject Suffrage

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

Bob_McDonnellVirginia Governor elect Bob McDonnell issued a statement today that once in office he would pursue a referendum in Virginia to reject the constitutional amendment that lets women vote.1

McDonnell was attacked for his 1989 thesis for Regent University, in which he described working women and feminists as ‘detrimental’ to the family. Despite his campaign promise that his views have matured, McDonnell is apparently using the gubernatorial platform and the trend of states passing similar initiatives regarding civil rights to manifest his idealism in a state that has a long history of conservatism.

When asked about the implications of the Tenth Amendment, McDonnell’s spokesperson indicated that “the Constitution as ratified explicitly excluded women,2 and even if state sovereignty in this matter does not trump federal law, it is firmly established that the federal government cannot force participation in the administration of any of its programs.3 In addition, the federal government is prohibited from trying to prevent the Commonwealth’s free exercise of religion, which is a substantive part of the referendum — to affirm religious freedom.”4

  1. No, he didn’t. But it certainly looks like he could. How can we stand by idly while we let the masses vote on whether minorities can exercise equal civil rights? It’s quite likely that for years after Brown v. Board (and maybe even up through today), if we had put integration up to a popular vote, we’d still be segregated. Look at our rich history of civil rights, and you can easily see how we require iconic heroes to make headway, not majorities. How does it feel to see the finish line of equality and intellectual honesty and then suddenly and relentlessly be pulled backwards, back toward the dark ages full of human inequality and cruelty? Feels like shit. [<]
  2. See NOW [<]
  3. See Printz v United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) [<]
  4. See First Amendment [<]

Kids Forced to Swear to God to Obtain US Citizenship

Friday, September 4th, 2009

What’s wrong with this picture?

vernon

This is a photo taken at a Children’s U.S. Citizenship Ceremony in Mount Vernon yesterday. Fifty-eight children from 26 different countries all recited the “children’s oath of allegiance” after reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.1

I might be missing something, but why the FUCK are these kids swearing allegiance to God in order to obtain their U.S. citizenship?

According to the CNS article, “The ceremony was marked by references to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, the freedoms guaranteed citizens by the Constitution, and acknowledgment of God’s role in the nation’s traditions.”2

The countries represented at the ceremony included Iran, China, Bolivia, Cambodia, Canada, Columbia, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Korea, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.

Good thing these kids all come from God-fearing Christian countries, eh? Wouldn’t want them to be sneaking in any cultural or religious diversity, let alone, God forbid, non-religion.

This is child abuse.

  1. Mount Vernon Press Room; and see Washington Post article [<]
  2. CNS News. Correction: I mistakenly cited this as “CBS” news in the article. It has been corrected. More sources include ABC 7 News, Washington Post [<]

Obama finds hidden reference to God in the Constitution

Friday, August 21st, 2009

WASHINGTON DC — During President Obama’s conference call with dozens of faith leaders that provoked a 40-day campaign of religious activism in the form of prayer vigils, advertising, and more, the President revealed that he had uncovered undeniable proof that the nation’s founders intended to invoke the Christian god (“God”) in the U.S. Constitution.1

“It was a clerical manipulation intended to be found at the right moment,” said Obama of the Constitutional reference to God. “Just like ancient manuscripts were copied and recopied throughout the ages, creating and perpetuating early translation and other mistakes while hiding key messages from early religious leaders. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, was drafted and redrafted, and we actually put on display differing copies of what we think is the same document, and it is full of Masonic and other mysterious code.”2

Obama told the religious leaders that “I am my brother’s keeper,” referring to the biblical passage from Genesis where God asks Cain where his brother Abel was,3 and Cain replies, “I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?”4

Obama insisted that passing health care reform was a biblical mandate, a moral and ethical obligation established by God. Some critics have chided Obama’s decision to invoke the Christian god, but Obama was adamant that the Constitution clearly established the government as a Christian nation. When asked to clarify, Obama pulled his personal, redlined copy of the Constitution from his desk drawer and showed it to reporters attending the conference.

Upon viewing Obama’s copy, the religious experts on hand agreed that Obama had successfully spotted the name of God (Yahweh) spelled out clearly in the Constitution.

Compare for yourself:
yah-con
(Obama’s redlined copy)
const-unedited
(an unedited copy)5
Yahweh
(the Hebrew for Yahweh)

“Despite the fact that the language of the pre-God Constitution not only justifies, but also requires the U.S. government to reform health care for the welfare of America’s citizens,” Obama continued, “the biblical god, by way of the Constitution, demands it, so we must follow accordingly. Without our faith, this couldn’t be accomplished.”

A small minority of opponents still argue that prayer and religion have no place in government meetings, but Obama’s administration is well on its way to homogenizing the American religious point of view.

Up to this point, no one had been able to successfully find a pro-religious reference in the Constitution, and religious leaders worldwide have expressed their relief that the United States is finally falling into place among its fellow theocracies.

  1. Seriously, he more or less did. [<]
  2. This is absolutely true. See My Inalienably Unalienable Rights and Masonic signers. [<]
  3. Obviously a rhetorical question, since an omniscient being would already know the answer. [<]
  4. See Cain & Abel [<]
  5. I think it’s obvious from the intentionally drawn strong lines of “WE THE” compared to the rest of the Constitution that the author was trying to capture the attention of someone who would recognize how closely it and the Hebrew were matched. [<]

Pot-ential?

Friday, June 12th, 2009

Drug Czar

Despite Obama drug czar Gil Kerlikowske’s admonition that marijuana will still be federally outlawed regardless of the reduction of “war on drugs” rhetoric, there appears to be an increase in legal measures both at a state and federal level to legalize pot within the next few years, or at least severely reduce penalties for distribution.

According to SFGate, California’s budget crisis and increased public support are tipping the scales regarding pot legalization. The efforts include a July ballot measure in Oakland to create a cannabis tax category and hearings in the fall on a bill for decriminalization. The bill would allow limited cultivation, sales, and personal possession, but pro-decriminalization groups like TaxCannabis2010.org, estimate billions of dollars in sales tax revenue gain if marijuana is legalized.

Of course, even if California manages to legalize marijuana, the federal government still outlaws it. Activists hope that successful state initiatives will motivate change in the federal government, and the underlying states’ rights issue might set a tone conducive to the constitutional ideology of allowing states to grant greater freedoms to its citizens despite federal efforts to impose.

This dynamic is evident in the same-sex marriage issue today — some states are legalizing same-sex marriage while bills are being proposed in Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw it. The concept of infringing upon freedom was played out to great detriment when the federal government passed the prohibition amendment, The Noble Experiment manifest in the 18th Amendment, later repealing it with the 21st Amendment. Today, marijuana legalization opponents argue that states’ rights should trump the federal government in issues like gay marriage, abortion, and gun rights, while arguing that the federal government trumps state sovereignty with regard to personal use of marijuana.

While this interplay carries on, the sting of the federal prohibition against marijuana has already become less severe with Obama’s new pot dealer policy. Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the feds would no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries, and that states would be able to set their own marijuana laws. Regardless of such sentiment, the feds are still convicting and imprisoning dispensary owners.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, in June, a federal judge in Los Angeles handed over a year and a day prison sentence to a medical marijuana dispensary owner as an act of leniency, instead of the mandatory minimum five-year sentence for dealing in marijuana. This perpetuates the state-given rights versus federal prohibition issue, but it does establish some precedent and indication that, as Kerlikowske suggested, the tone of the drug war is being overtly and quickly lowered. What to watch for next is if California does legalize personal use, whether the federal government will conform to Holder’s assertion that states will be able to run their own show with regard to marijuana law.