Nov Election, Candidates Aside...

[Ragoczy]

I understand your objections and can see some merit in them. But I can also see merit in restructuring the election process. As things stand now, the candidate who can raise the most money stands the best chance of buying the election. That requires him/her to kowtow to the people with the money; big business, the elite, etc. This makes it very difficult for a candidate who wants to impose limits on the effects of big business and the rich on politics to get funding, thereby making it more difficult for him to buy equal time on TV.

What I'm saying is, take the money out of the equation. ALL funds go into a trough, and every candidate gets an equal portion. Then limit the amount of money which can be spent on advertising. The candidate can choose to purchase a lot of TV time in non-prime time slots, or a little bit of time in the more expensive, but more lucrative slots.

As for who would qualify for this money, sure there are problems which would have to be ironed out. I don't claim to have all the answers. And I don't want to see anyone's freedoms taken away. I just want to see more equity in the election process, making it a little more possible for a non-Democrat or non-Republican to get into office. As for personal choices, you can still promote your candidate through innumerable free venues, such as writing letters to the papers, online sites, even public rallies.

Sure it's a rough proposal, and one I don't anticipate getting any serious attention from politicians. After all, passing a law along these lines would be tantamount to political suicide for many of them.

So what do you then do about someone not the candidate who wants to buy airtime to support the candidate's position? In order avoid the "money problem", you'd have to deny that.

Which means I couldn't personally buy a TV ad during the election cycle to express my views.

So, because of perceived abuses, we restrict the rights of everyone.

I'm sorry, but that's not the way rights work. It's hard to protect them, because it means accepting things you might not necessarily like, but the alternative is opening the door to more and more limits, all, I'm sure, for the best of reasons and with pure intentions. And, in the end, we find that we've given away everything.

[mkemse]

I understand your objections and can see some merit in them. But I can also see merit in restructuring the election process. As things stand now, the candidate who can raise the most money stands the best chance of buying the election. That requires him/her to kowtow to the people with the money; big business, the elite, etc. This makes it very difficult for a candidate who wants to impose limits on the effects of big business and the rich on politics to get funding, thereby making it more difficult for him to buy equal time on TV.

What I'm saying is, take the money out of the equation. ALL funds go into a trough, and every candidate gets an equal portion. Then limit the amount of money which can be spent on advertising. The candidate can choose to purchase a lot of TV time in non-prime time slots, or a little bit of time in the more expensive, but more lucrative slots.

As for who would qualify for this money, sure there are problems which would have to be ironed out. I don't claim to have all the answers. And I don't want to see anyone's freedoms taken away. I just want to see more equity in the election process, making it a little more possible for a non-Democrat or non-Republican to get into office. As for personal choices, you can still promote your candidate through innumerable free venues, such as writing letters to the papers, online sites, even public rallies.

Sure it's a rough proposal, and one I don't anticipate getting any serious attention from politicians. After all, passing a law along these lines would be tantamount to political suicide for many of them.

What real needs to be done plain and simpe is get rid of the Electoral College, it is way out of date and use only the Popular Vote to decide the Next President

[Ragoczy]

What real needs to be done plain and simpe is get rid of the Electoral College, it is way out of date and use only the Popular Vote to decide the Next President

Why?

The first thing to understand about the Electoral College is that, Constitutionally, you as an individual have no right to vote for President of the United States and weren't intended to. The United States is a Republic made of up of the Several States. The intent of the framers, as expressed in the Constitution, was that those States would decide who led the Union (President). It would be perfectly legal, Constitutionally, for a State Legislature to simply appoint delegates to the Electoral College as they saw fit, holding no popular vote at all within that State. It just so happens that all States allocate their Electoral votes based on a popular election within that State.

The second thing to understand is how Electors are apportioned to the Several States and why. This is done in the same way as Representatives, based on the Census. The apportionment was designed to give high-population States greater representation, and consequently greater say in who became President, while still maintaining a balance for less populace States by providing a minimum number of Electors and Representatives. In this way the larger States are not so able to "gang up" on less populated States (typically rural).

Doing away with the Electoral College and moving to a purely popular vote would give a disproportionate amount of political power to heavily populated urban areas at the expense of the minority in rural areas. The President would become a President of the Cities, needing to concern himself little with the needs of those in less populated areas. It would also eliminate the Republic concept, weakening States' rights.

We've already moved away from the Republic-intent of the Constitution by ratifying the 17th Amendment in 1912. This made Senators elected by popular vote instead of being appointed by the State legislatures.

Yes, this "solved" an immediate, perceived problem -- that of corruption and confusion in the Senatorial selection process.

But look at what it's created: a Senate full of career politicians, 80- and 90-year old Senators whose mental faculties are questionable at best, their offices essentially being served by unelected, unappointed staff.

It created an American aristocracy of Senatorial privilege that hadn't previously existed, because the legislatures had typically not sent the same Senator to Washington for four or more decades.

Rather than Statesmen, men who were there to perform a duty for their State and Country, we have politicians who are more interested in not making hard decisions, not doing anything controversial, even if it's in the Country's best interest, and, most importantly, not doing anything that would hurt their chances to be reelected.

It is so easy to look for the simple answer to a complex question without fully exploring the possible ramifications, but altering the fundamental principles of the Republic is not something to be undertaken lightly.

[mkemse]

ok, then how about term limits the President has one lrt's say all Senator and House Reps are lmited to say 2 terms

[Ragoczy]

ok, then how about term limits the President has one lrt's say all Senator and House Reps are lmited to say 2 terms

This is one that SO tempts me. But, ultimately, we have term limits, it's called an election. Much as I would love for some of those asses to have to work for a living, the people of their States and Districts did chose to send them back, time after time.

On the one hand, who am I to tell them they can't? On the other hand, it was never the intent of the Framers for us to have a political aristocracy -- the intent was a term of public service and then back to a real life.

I'm not sure how I'd come down on a term-limits amendment.

[mkemse]

ok, but even with that what I meant was senators ca not serve more then 2 terms or 8 years like the president and Reps are limited to say 3 2 year terms after that they ca not run again for the same office if a President can't serve more then 8 years why should they be able to?

[mkemse]

And after the Election in Novembmer if i ever hear the phrase again "My Firends" I will throw up
I am tired of hearing him say that every day day in day out

and tonight as Mccain said he s worried about lossing the election, Obama said he is worried about People looingtheir jobs, homes, retirement funds ect interting point of who is concenred about what

[Ragoczy]

ok, but even with that what I meant was senators ca not serve more then 2 terms or 8 years like the president and Reps are limited to say 3 2 year terms after that they ca not run again for the same office if a President can't serve more then 8 years why should they be able to?

Why should the President only be able to serve two terms?

Presidential term limits are relatively new -- it wasn't until 1951 that the 22nd Amendment was ratified. And there's only been one President who served more than two terms, so was it such a problem that it needed a Constitutional Amendment to fix?

It's a balancing act between the will of the people (to keep the same person in the job) and the intent and supposition of the framers (having a citizen-legislature).

If it came to a vote, I'd probably vote for a term limits amendment. But I'm not so confident it's the right thing that I'd get out and actively pursue one.

[mkemse]

Why should the President only be able to serve two terms?

Presidential term limits are relatively new -- it wasn't until 1951 that the 22nd Amendment was ratified. And there's only been one President who served more than two terms, so was it such a problem that it needed a Constitutional Amendment to fix?

It's a balancing act between the will of the people (to keep the same person in the job) and the intent and supposition of the framers (having a citizen-legislature).

If it came to a vote, I'd probably vote for a term limits amendment. But I'm not so confident it's the right thing that I'd get out and actively pursue one.

It is in the Constitution after FDR served 4 terms I believe it was

Would you want George Bush President 8 more years, or Clnton for 12 years ect ect
I only use those names as they are the most recent ones

[mkemse]

Presidential term limits are relatively new -- it wasn't until 1951 that the 22nd Amendment was ratified. And there's only been one President who served more than two terms, so was it such a problem that it needed a Constitutional Amendment to fix?

Apparently so or the 22nd Amendment never would have been passed

[mkemse]

The only heads of state with No Terms Limits are the Castros (who stepped down due to health, Hgo Chavez, and even in Russia for all intensive purposes Putin is stil in charge even if not in Title

[Ragoczy]

Presidential term limits are relatively new -- it wasn't until 1951 that the 22nd Amendment was ratified. And there's only been one President who served more than two terms, so was it such a problem that it needed a Constitutional Amendment to fix?

Apparently so or the 22nd Amendment never would have been passed

Right, because things don't get passed for stupid reasons. Like, say, a bunch of idiots wanting to ban alcohol would never be able to get something like that into the Constitution with disastrous results ...

The 22nd Amendment was a knee-jerk reaction to FDR being elected to four terms -- which only came about because of a unique series of events. The Democrats never would have nominated FDR for a third term except for two things: 1) the Republicans had made significant gains in Congress; and 2) World War II was starting. The Democrats felt that FDRs leadership through the Depression would give him an advantage with the threat facing the US. So he won his third term and then his fourth election was during wartime when it's generally been considered a bad idea to change leadership. If it hadn't been for the war, he likely wouldn't have been nominated, much less elected, for even the third term.

But the concept of a four-term President scared the hell out of Congress and they pushed the Amendment through pretty damn quick.

So let's look at something here -- FDR's leadership is generally credited as a significant reason for the Allied victory in WWII. If the 22nd Amendment had been in place prior to 1930, he would have been ineligible to be President during the war. That Amendment has put us in a position where we may not be able to have the best man for the job as President during a time of crisis and may have to change leadership in the middle of a war some day. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

[Ragoczy]

The only heads of state with No Terms Limits are the Castros (who stepped down due to health, Hgo Chavez, and even in Russia for all intensive purposes Putin is stil in charge even if not in Title

We have term limits called elections and they worked fine for 150+ years with multiple, orderly and peaceful transfers of power in the Executive Branch.

[Ragoczy]

It is in the Constitution after FDR served 4 terms I believe it was

Would you want George Bush President 8 more years, or Clnton for 12 years ect ect
I only use those names as they are the most recent ones

Missed this earlier.

No, I wouldn't like either of them for another term. Reagan, yes, but no other President in my lifetime.

But, like everything else involving freedom, limiting what I don't want but others do also means limiting what I may one day want.

[Thorne]

So what do you then do about someone not the candidate who wants to buy airtime to support the candidate's position? In order avoid the "money problem", you'd have to deny that.

Which means I couldn't personally buy a TV ad during the election cycle to express my views.

Again, my point is that the current system is flawed, and any suggestions I've made are purely speculative, without having all the bumps and valleys smoothed out. For example, one answer to your question would be to have local networks provide time, whether weekly or daily or whatever (paid for by the same group which controls the funds for all candidates, perhaps), during which any citizen could air his views regarding his candidate. This still allows free speech without permitting individuals to spend large sums of money in support of one candidate. And in my (admittedly less than perfect) world, the corporations would have no political say, nor would the churches.

I'm sorry, but that's not the way rights work. It's hard to protect them, because it means accepting things you might not necessarily like, but the alternative is opening the door to more and more limits, all, I'm sure, for the best of reasons and with pure intentions. And, in the end, we find that we've given away everything.

I agree with you, it is hard. And I'm not trying to make a definitive rule here that would have to be followed to the letter. I'm merely tossing out ideas. While I agree with you about the undesireability of a pure democracy, I don't particularly care for the current brand of corporate republic which this country's political arena has become. Keep big business and religions out of the political arena and let the citizens decide. Of course there would need to be checks and balances, just as the original Constitution was aiming for.

But change is needed, in my opinion. The current system, while keeping a nodding acceptance of the Constitution, has become so corrupt and controlled by a very small minority that it is virtually impossible for anyone who might threaten that minority to get elected, or even nominated.

[Thorne]

It is so easy to look for the simple answer to a complex question without fully exploring the possible ramifications, but altering the fundamental principles of the Republic is not something to be undertaken lightly.

You are so right! And it is in forums like this, discussions between concerned people, that the foundations for making those alterations can be built. It's a slow, agonizing process, to be sure. As you say, there are no easy answers. And if it comes right down to it, I'd rather have no change than to make things worse with bad changes.

[Thorne]

Right, because things don't get passed for stupid reasons. Like, say, a bunch of idiots wanting to ban alcohol would never be able to get something like that into the Constitution with disastrous results ...

You forgot to hit your sarcasm button for this one, didn't you?

The 22nd Amendment was a knee-jerk reaction to FDR being elected to four terms ... the concept of a four-term President scared the hell out of Congress and they pushed the Amendment through pretty damn quick.

The way I heard it, long ago, is that the Republican Party was so angry about FDR being elected to four terms that it was they who pushed through the amendment. And then they were kicking themselves when Eisenhower had to step down after two terms. (Don't know if that's true, and I'm too lazy to look it up. Chalk it up to anecdotal evidence.)

Like you, I'm up in the air on term limits. It's a great idea when there's a dope in the office, not so good when there's a truly great man there. (Not that I think there are all that many great men, or women, in politics.) But I think it's something that needs to be fair. If Congress wants to impose term limits on the Presidency, then it's only right that there be term limits on Congress as well.

[Ragoczy]

Again, my point is that the current system is flawed, and any suggestions I've made are purely speculative, without having all the bumps and valleys smoothed out.

And questioning the speculation smooths out the rough spots and reveals the flaws ... that and Satan has me on retainer.

For example, one answer to your question would be to have local networks provide time, whether weekly or daily or whatever (paid for by the same group which controls the funds for all candidates, perhaps), during which any citizen could air his views regarding his candidate. This still allows free speech without permitting individuals to spend large sums of money in support of one candidate. And in my (admittedly less than perfect) world, the corporations would have no political say, nor would the churches.

"The same group" sounds suspiciously like taxpayers. And the idea sounds suspiciously like the "Free Speech Zones" that have cropped up over recent years -- I don't like those. The Constitution doesn't say "or abridging the freedom of speech down the road two miles from where the candidate is speaking" or "or abridging the freedom of speech on Channel 17" -- there's no qualifier, the nation itself, airwaves included, is a free speech zone.

I agree with you, it is hard. And I'm not trying to make a definitive rule here that would have to be followed to the letter. I'm merely tossing out ideas. While I agree with you about the undesireability of a pure democracy, I don't particularly care for the current brand of corporate republic which this country's political arena has become. Keep big business and religions out of the political arena and let the citizens decide. Of course there would need to be checks and balances, just as the original Constitution was aiming for.

Would you agree that part of the influence corporations have is through lobbyists whose fundamental objective is to use campaign contributions to influence the byzantine tax structure? If so, what do you think of the Fair Tax, which would eliminate that?

Religion has its place in the political process. Individuals form their views from their religion (primarily) and that's always going to influence their political decisions.

But change is needed, in my opinion. The current system, while keeping a nodding acceptance of the Constitution, has become so corrupt and controlled by a very small minority that it is virtually impossible for anyone who might threaten that minority to get elected, or even nominated.

I agree, and so did the Founders, as several of them warned against the dangers of entrenched political parties.

[Thorne]

... that and Satan has me on retainer.

You mean he pays you? I may need to renegotiate my contract!

"The same group" sounds suspiciously like taxpayers.

Not specifically. As I said in an earlier post, I would finance all campaigns from a pool of funds donated voluntarily by any entity that cares to. That would include church groups, corporations and individuals. No tax revenues, although the funds could be collected similarly to the Presedential Election Campaign Fund donation from your tax form.
But the funds would be parcelled out equally among the candidates, with no one campaign getting more than any other. That allows the voters to elect the person they feel is most qualified, rather than the one with the most money for ads. This same fund could pay for the TV time for public access. Naturally, some non-partisan group would have to handle this. One of those bumps I mentioned.

the nation itself, airwaves included, is a free speech zone.

True in theory, but if it were true in fact there would be no censorship of the networks. In fact, there are always some good and valid reasons to abridge free speech. Try shouting FIRE in a crowded theater and see how far you get with a free speech defense.

Would you agree that part of the influence corporations have is through lobbyists whose fundamental objective is to use campaign contributions to influence the byzantine tax structure? If so, what do you think of the Fair Tax, which would eliminate that?

I agree that their objective includes the tax structure, as well as the propagation of laws which will benefit the corporations over the individuals. This is the very kind of action which needs to be curtailed.
As for the Fair Tax, I don't know that much about it. Hopefully within the next five years, long before any significant tax reform could hope to take hold, I'll be retired and not nearly so worried about the taxes as I am now. But anything which eliminates fabricated breaks for greedy people and businesses is a step up in my book.

Religion has its place in the political process. Individuals form their views from their religion (primarily) and that's always going to influence their political decisions.

True, people live their lives based upon their religious training, among other things. That includes candidates. The religion of anyone in this country should not have anything to do with their ability to hold office. Theoretically. In practice, though....
But what I'm concerned with is those ministers/priests/rabbis/whatever who use the pulpit to put forth a political position. To my mind, doing that negates the right of the church to claim tax-free status. And when the churches become actively involved in a campaign, including through the donation of money to their candidates, that violates the constitution. If a priest/minister/whatever wants to make speeches as an individual, that's fine. Let him do it on the street corner soap box like any other person, without his religious trappings.

[Ragoczy]

Not specifically. As I said in an earlier post, I would finance all campaigns from a pool of funds donated voluntarily by any entity that cares to. That would include church groups, corporations and individuals. No tax revenues, although the funds could be collected similarly to the Presedential Election Campaign Fund donation from your tax form.
But the funds would be parcelled out equally among the candidates, with no one campaign getting more than any other. That allows the voters to elect the person they feel is most qualified, rather than the one with the most money for ads. This same fund could pay for the TV time for public access. Naturally, some non-partisan group would have to handle this. One of those bumps I mentioned.

And the next bump would be, which candidates? I'd be extremely hesitant to donate if I knew an equal amount of my donation was going to go to Cynthia McKinnie (sic) and her insanity. I'd be okay with my donation going equally to Obama and McCain, much as I despise one of them (guess which ), but at least they're legitimate candidates. So who/how decides which of everyone who'd like to run for President gets a share?

True in theory, but if it were true in fact there would be no censorship of the networks. In fact, there are always some good and valid reasons to abridge free speech. Try shouting FIRE in a crowded theater and see how far you get with a free speech defense.

Well, I fundamentally disagree with FCC regulation of content. I agree with licensing, as a necessary traffic cop to keep the signals from overlapping and I agree with government access requirements, under eminent domain, but I'm strongly opposed to FCC oversight of content.

The "fire!" example is fundamental to Constitutional law -- your right to swing your arm ends at the other guy's nose. Meaning that when your exercising a right infringes on the rights of others, that's when it's abridged. For instance, you can picket a business on the public right-of-way, but cannot go on the business' property because it's private property.

There's no infringement on another's rights if I buy time on a network for political speech.

I agree that their objective includes the tax structure, as well as the propagation of laws which will benefit the corporations over the individuals. This is the very kind of action which needs to be curtailed.

Can I just point out that corporations are individuals? There's no Jabba-the-Hut-looking creature out there that's called a corporation -- corporations are owned by individuals.

True, people live their lives based upon their religious training, among other things. That includes candidates. The religion of anyone in this country should not have anything to do with their ability to hold office. Theoretically. In practice, though....
But what I'm concerned with is those ministers/priests/rabbis/whatever who use the pulpit to put forth a political position. To my mind, doing that negates the right of the church to claim tax-free status. And when the churches become actively involved in a campaign, including through the donation of money to their candidates, that violates the constitution. If a priest/minister/whatever wants to make speeches as an individual, that's fine. Let him do it on the street corner soap box like any other person, without his religious trappings.

How does it violate the Constitution? Why doesn't the free exercise of religion mean that my church can support a particular candidate we, as the congregation, believe best represents us? How is that any different than any other group supporting a candidate?

'course I'm not sure how that would work, because I don't attend church and, being an Apathetic Agnostic, it'd be a really weird service ...

"Does anybody know if there's a god yet?" "No."
"Does anybody care yet?" "No."
"Okay, see you next Sunday."

[Thorne]

Can I just point out that corporations are individuals? There's no Jabba-the-Hut-looking creature out there that's called a corporation -- corporations are owned by individuals.

Corporations are entities, certainly. And individuals may be corporations. But corporations, as an entity, is not a citizen and does not have a right to vote. Individual citizens, even those who are corporations, do have that right.

How does it violate the Constitution? Why doesn't the free exercise of religion mean that my church can support a particular candidate we, as the congregation, believe best represents us? How is that any different than any other group supporting a candidate?

I never said that the members of any church, nor their minister, could not support a candidate. But using that church as a means of promoting any candidate, or of promoting or opposing a referendum is getting close to infringing on the separation of church and state. Why should a church be allowed to promote someone for election to public office, but if someone in public office tried to promote someone to be minister of the church, wouldn't they would scream separation? Besides, I never meant they shouldn't be allowed to, just that they should lose their tax-free status if they do.

An example is happening right now in my home town. There is a referendum on the ballot to allow Sunday liquor sales in restaurants, primarily because of the tourist dollars that could be gained. The local church leaders, naturally, are dead set against it, and aren't shy about letting everyone know it. They are using their positions as religious leaders to fight a non-religious issue. But if the state stepped in and declared, for example, that all churches were required to say the Pledge of Allegience at the beginning of all services, they would scream separation.

'course I'm not sure how that would work, because I don't attend church and, being an Apathetic Agnostic, it'd be a really weird service ...

"Does anybody know if there's a god yet?" "No."
"Does anybody care yet?" "No."
"Okay, see you next Sunday."

LOL! I didn't know there was another one out there! I've been using that title for years!

[Ragoczy]

Corporations are entities, certainly. And individuals may be corporations. But corporations, as an entity, is not a citizen and does not have a right to vote. Individual citizens, even those who are corporations, do have that right.

Corporations are legal fictions. They own nothing, so any action taken against a corporation is taken against the individuals who own that corporation -- whether a single owner or millions of stockholders. This is the myth of "corporate taxes" -- they don't take money from a "corporation", they take it from individuals ... either by lower profits for the shareholders (who, in the US, are likely to be average, middle-class folks with 401Ks) or as increased costs to the individual consumer.

I never said that the members of any church, nor their minister, could not support a candidate. But using that church as a means of promoting any candidate, or of promoting or opposing a referendum is getting close to infringing on the separation of church and state. Why should a church be allowed to promote someone for election to public office, but if someone in public office tried to promote someone to be minister of the church, wouldn't they would scream separation? Besides, I never meant they shouldn't be allowed to, just that they should lose their tax-free status if they do.

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. In fact, the word "separation" appears nowhere. I'll wait while you check ...

There is an establishment clause in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So where does it say that churches can't support or endorse a candidate? Where does it say that the government can prohibit them from doing so? The answer is that it doesn't.

"Separation of Church and State" was a phrase first coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

Can you honestly read the full context of Jefferson's use of the term and believe that his intent was for the State to limit the Church? That he would condone the State telling a preacher that he can't express an opinion from the pulpit of his own church?

That phrase was then misused in a Supreme Court ruling and it's been downhill ever since. There are people who actually think the phrase is in the Constitution.

Why should the church be able to express an opinion on an election but the State can't put a preacher in the pulpit? Because the Constitution isn't about limiting the rights of the church, it's about setting forth and limiting the powers of government. The individual, in the person of a preacher in the pulpit of his church, which is private property, should not have the intrusive, police-powers of government used to tell him what he may and may not say.

The misuse of "Separation of Church and State" is one of the things this country should be ashamed of.

This growing absurdity is one of the reasons I'm no longer a member of the ACLU -- yes, I was a card-carrying, dues-paying member of that organization for over a decade. They left me behind when they stopped being about protecting Constitutional rights and started being about promoting a left-wing agenda.

One of the reasons for my leaving was an instance where a high-school valedictorian had her speech censored. The topic of her speech was what had inspired her to work so hard that she earned the honor of being valedictorian -- one of the things that did so was her personal faith. The school denied her the right to say this.

Now this wasn't the school forcing all the kids to pray. It wasn't a school employee in a position of authority over the students proselytizing. It was a student, in time she earned to express her personal opinion, talking about what inspired her -- not preaching, not proselytizing, but simply saying, "My faith in Jesus Christ inspired me to work hard."

It's okay, last year, for a student to talk about Barack Obama in his speech, because he was (rightly so) inspired by Obama's success to work hard himself, but being inspired by religious faith is verboten? A personal political opinion is okay, but a personal religious one isn't?

How is telling a teenager she can't say she was inspired by her faith not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

It doesn't stop there -- in schools all over the country, students are told they can't wear a religious symbol on a necklace, can't bring a personal Bible to school to read in their free time, can't form a group to pray before class, can't even talk to their friends about religion. All of this in the name of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

"Hi, we're from the government and we're going to protect your religious freedoms by telling you what you can't do."

An example is happening right now in my home town. There is a referendum on the ballot to allow Sunday liquor sales in restaurants, primarily because of the tourist dollars that could be gained. The local church leaders, naturally, are dead set against it, and aren't shy about letting everyone know it. They are using their positions as religious leaders to fight a non-religious issue. But if the state stepped in and declared, for example, that all churches were required to say the Pledge of Allegience at the beginning of all services, they would scream separation.

And they'd scream rightly. The whole basis is that the People have absolute rights and the Government has limited power.

Now, I don't agree with blue laws -- don't like them, think they're stupid -- but that church leader's opinion, expressed to his congregation, in their church or homes or even on the public street, is none of the government's damn business.

"Congress shall make no law ..." -- "Shut up, there's a law."

Now, please keep in mind that this rant is brought to you by a self-described Apathetic Agnostic. I don't have any religious faith, I'm just not arrogant enough to deny the possibility and join the Church of Atheism. And, ultimately, I dislike organized religion.

But its a fundamental right in this country that's being eroded, slowly, surely and, make no mistake, deliberately -- the conversation that caused me to send my ACLU membership card back with instructions that they could fold it until it was all sharp corners and then stick it someplace inconvenient left me with no doubt of that.

[Kuskovian]

A side note on the side topic:

I served 16 years in the military through four different conflicts so my fellow Americans could excersise thier rights.

Free speech is one of those rights.

Just becuase I would never burn my country's flag that so many of my brothers and sisters have died for (except for the proper disposal ritual)
doesn't mean I am going to object or stop others using it to express the freedom our sacrifices made possible.

Just remember what you are saying when you do it.


Now back on topic:

I would love if they simplified the election proccess and removed the coruption from the system, unfortunately it is the same corrupt bastards in charge that would have to do it.

This election has been way too long.

The biased media is not even attempting to hide it's influence and is; as some allready mentioned above, basically trying to decide for us.

That day of change will not arrive until we lose our sence of complacency.

The Tree of Liberty wll only thrive again when we become less like "dull eyed sheep", and more like the "men" that founded this venture we call "the land of the free and the home of the brave".

But a better man than I once said it best:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson.

[mkemse]

I apprciciate your posts and remarks aboe and thank you for your time service to The United States