This_person
Well-Known Member
Why would a group of people who knew they were doing wrong do this wrong at least twice? Especially if they're arguing against it while they're doing it?FredFlash said:
This_person
Well-Known Member
Not exactly. I'm asking what makes the action "unauthorized". What I mean by that is, if it is an "unauthorized" action, that must be because it meets the hurdle of having the same authority as "Congress shall make no law..." For, if this proclamation by the president does not meet that same level of authority as a law (like a code of federal regulations would, or an executive order would, etc.), then I don't understand what would make it unauthorized.FredFlash said:
No, clearly this is NOT the issue (at least not in this discussion), as I've clearly and repeatedly made the statement that I understand executive orders, governmental policies in terms of codes of federal regulations, etc., meet this same authority level.
The issue is whether a proclamation (recommendation) by the president meets this same authority level.
For example, when our current governor recently proclaimed La Plata "Capital for a Day", did that have the same authority as if the legislature passed a law declaring La Plata capital? Was the actual capital of Maryland La Plata on that day, or was that just a bit of fluff that politicians speak that really has no meaning in law?
If they have no legal authority, how do they defy the concept of "Congress shall make no law..."?
Do you see what I mean? If they mean nothing (no legal authority), then they can't violate the actual prohibition, let alone the spirit of it.
But, you state you see no authority in them?
This_person
Well-Known Member
I believe religious truth is not what we're discussing. We're discussing legalities.FredFlash said:
I also believe the bulk of the population has some form of trust in some form of a god, thus it is an accurate characterization of our country to say "In God We Trust"; even if this is not 100% true of 100% of the citizens, it characterizes the people.
FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
The First U. S. Congress only once asked the President to issue a religious recommendation. Why did they do it?
The evidence suggests that the overthrow of the previous government and the establishment of the new, without bloodshed, was believed to warrant a request upon the chief executive to perform an extra-constitutional act - which would acknowledge gratitude to God for the opportunity to establish a new government - that everyone knew the President did not actually have the authority to perform, and therefore, would not establish a legitimate precedent for civil authority, of the advisory sort, over the people's religion.
In 1789, the concept of no civil jurisdiction whatsoever over religion had not fully matured in the collective American mind, in the sense that it had not thought through all of the practical consequences of the principle. Twenty eight years later, the concept had matured to the point that Presidents had no fear of a political backlash for refusing to issue religious proclamation.
FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
I say that an executive religious recommendation issued by proclamation is unauthorized because the Constitution does not grant the President authority over religion or the power to issue proclamations.
I subscribe to the view that "The CONSTITUTION of government of the United States was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity. They have declared it the supreme law of the land. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of certain powers, and reserved all others to the states or to the people.
An establishment of religion, made by any agent of the U. S. Government, is also unauthorized because the Constitution does not grant the government any authority whatsoever over religion.
This_person
Well-Known Member
So, are you saying that the problem isn't that you feel this was a violation of the first amendment, but that this proclamation was unlawful because it does not cover proclamations in Article II, Sections 2 or 3 of the Constitution? If so, I misunderstood you to believe that there was something in a presidential proclamation equivalent to "Congress shall make no law..."FredFlash said:
I'll agree that there is nothing whatsoever in the enumeration of powers granted to the president that declares he/she may issue proclamations.
I'm not sure how that fits in with our discussion of the first amendment, though. If it's your contention that these types of proclamations (speeches, weekly radio addresses, pretty much every time the president speaks outside of the State of the Union Address) hold no "presidential" authority, as they are not specifically stated in the enumeration of powers, than aren't they really just a guy talking, albeit on our dime? Not a "civil authority"?
Of course not, that authority is entirely left to the individual to decide for themselves. And, now that we've established that a presidential proclamation does not establish religion, should we move back to the motto?
FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
The object of the First Amendment's religion clauses was merely clarification. It should be construed according to its spirit, which is no civil authority over religion, if a literal interpretation has an effect and consequence that violates the spirit of the Amendment, and the un-Amended Constitution, which is no civil authority over religion.
Are you trying to ask me if a law made by Presidential Proclamation is not as authoritative as a law made by the House of Representatives and the Senate passing a bill and presenting it to the President? If so, my view is that it does not carry the same authority. Congress is vested by the Constitution with "All legislative Powers herein granted."
True. That everyone knew an executive religious proclamation was bull####, was probably why Congress asked the President in 1789 to issue one instead of doing it on its own non-authority.
However, Washington screwed the pooch by issuing a second religious proclamation on his own, to try and unite the nation after the Whiskey Rebellion, which gave the Counterfeit Christians an argument that they could use to undermine the Christian principle of no civil power over things purely spiritual that they so vehemently despise. Adams gave them even more ammunition but he paid for it by getting his ass kick out of office.
Jefferson put his foot down, but Madison, for political gain, or rather not to pick a fight over principle in the midst of managing an unpopular war on American soil, failed to live up to his principles.
However, every President from Monroe to Buchanan, a period of almost a half century, had no problem standing up for no executive religious proclamation, however, none of the them had to deal with a request for an executive religious recommendation from Congress during war time.
Advice, suggestions and recommendations on non-religious matters don't constitute infringement on the authority of the Almighty and interfere with the obligation he has imposed on men to ignore the wishes of civil authority regarding the rendering of homage to him.
That's right! And anything that could reasonable be considered as an establishment of a duty we owe our Creator, or as civil authority over those duties, is beyond the cognizance of the federal government.
The law that placed "in God we trust" on the nation's coins could reasonably be judged to be an establishment by law of a duty that we owe to the Creator. Namely, the duty to trust in God.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Clarification of what? It was clear to Madison that the Constitution stood on it's own, and needed no amendments. To clarify by saying "Congress shall make no law..." would imply that the clarification is to Congress's enumeration of powers, that they have no authority to create such a law. To me, the spirit is in the enforcement/establishment of a religion, not the spirit that religion may not be spoken of by any person of authority within government.FredFlash said:
Indeed, the official prayers, request for proclamation, and the official writings of the individuals involved imply a great reverence for religions of many different kinds; but a fear that the government may try and impose a particular religion seemed the problem.
And, without that authority, it cannot violate the first amendment.
You seemed to have switched gears here. Is the First Amendment, in your view, the Almighty's protection against government, or the people's protection against government determining an Almighty?
I disagree. How does a characterization of what exists constitute a duty? If the motto were "Trust In God", or "As an American, You Shall Trust In God", I might tend to believe that, because those would be words of duty.
"In God We Trust" is a statement of fact, not a duty, and a true characterization of the American people. It's like saying "On a Harley he rides." That isn't a duty to ride a Harley, it's a statement that he rides a Harley.
Last edited:
FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
The religion clauses of the First Amendment clarified that, under the Constitution, the general government was granted no power over religion. The no religious test clause was interpreted by some to imply general power over religion. Also, there was concern that the elastic, or "necessary and proper", clause would allow an establishment of religion.
I agree that a civil magistrate merely speaking about religion is not necessarily an establishment of religion. The test is whether the words spoken were an assumption of authority over the duty we owe to our Creator.
Excluding religion from the cognizance of civil authority show they indeed had great respect for religion, or rather for true religion, which ignores the wishes of civil government. and is instead dictated by one's conscience and convictions.
The general concern was to secure the rights of conscience. The establishment of a particular religion by law is only one of the many ways civil authority could infringe upon the rights of conscience.
"In God We Trust" is not a statement of fact or a true characterization of the American people. At best, it is an opinion regarding the religious sentiments of the people. At worst, it is religious advice.
The historical evidence - a letter from Treasury Secretary Chase to James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia dated November 20, 1861, stating that, "the trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins" - suggests that "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins was intended to be a declaration of the "trust of our people in God." There are no words in the U. S. Constitution granting the government any duty, responsibility, obligation, right, privilege or authority to declare the people's trust in God, their distrust in God, or any other of the people's sentiments respecting the duties they believe they owe to their Creator. The people's trust in God is a religious matter that is exempt from the cognizance of the government.
This_person
Well-Known Member
And, certainly a recommendation could not in any reasonable way be assumed to be an authority over a duty. It's just that, a recommendation from one person of religion to a nation of people that, mostly, admit to following such advise - with those that choose not to being in every way allowed to choose not to with absolutely no repurcussions.FredFlash said:
So, by speaking it it's not an establishment of religion, and it clearly shows no authority as it's just a recommendation to those wishing to follow it. I'm glad we put that to bed as not a problem for the first amendment!
How do you mean it's not a statement of fact? Are you questioning the English of my assertion that it's a statement of fact, or are you questioning whether the bulk of the American people trust in one form or another of their chosen god?
You're making my point. It was a declaration of something that exists, and the director of the mint felt that fact should be declared. This is not a duty, this is merely a statement of what existed then, and now.
There's no specific words granting the duty, responsibility, obligation, right, privilege, or authority to do a lot of things that we do as a matter of course - just part of how a government works. A national motto is certainly something that falls within the sights of the national government. It's a norm for virtually all countries. So, to state a truth regarding what actually exists in the country is not a duty, it's a statement of fact, a declaration, a motto.
If you're curious as to the makeup of our country, 29,481 out of 207,980 reported lack of belief in a god based religion in the most recent Census, with another 11,246 refusing to offer up that information. If we assume all of those people are completely non-religious, and that the different "non-religion" religions that make-up the 28,481 all have no god in which they trust, that's still less than 1 in 5 people for whom the motto does not apply, or, more than 80% of the people for whom it does. While I don't choose to look up the 1864 census information, I feel very confident in saying that it would be reported as at least this strong a ratio of the makeup of the country. Thus, it becomes an investigated and verifiable fact that the motto is a true representation of the makeup of the country's populace.
FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
A recommendation to perform a religious exercise, issued by a civil magistrate, to the people, assumes that the people have a duty to do so. Thus, it is an assumption of civil authority over the people's duty to pray.
I share with James Madison, the view that, "In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they [The members of a Govt] might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But... their [religious] recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate." In other words, if a civil magistrate wants to issue religious advice, he should make it clear that his advice does not emanate from the authority of his civil office by not using any of the resources or advantages of his civil office, to disseminate his spiritual advice.
FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
If the advice is issued only to those who have previously acknowledged the authority of the civil magistrate over the things that are God's, and thereby turned their backs upon the Almighty's authority over the means of salvation, and worship in the House of Satan, then I have no problem with the issuance of the advice.
Spoken words, as well as written words, can constitute an unconstitutional assumption of civil jurisdiction over religion.
I dispute the truth of the claim that every American considers himself, and each one of his religious opinions, under the authority of the same God, as the one referred to the phrase under discussion.
Last edited:
FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
The declaration is false, and even if it was true, the government has no authority to declare the religious opinions of the people. Each individual, not groups of persons, is accountable to God for their religious sentiments and actions, and the declaration thereof.
To say that the government has the authority to declare a man's religious principles, "is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers", or that the majority has a right to govern the minority.
This_person
Well-Known Member
If this is true, then every recommendation from any civil magistrate, to the people, assumes that the people have a duty to do that recommendation. Thus, it would assume a civil authority over my patience when Tony Snow is asking me to give the troop surge time to work, it would assume a civil authority over women's walking rights when a policeman is recommending that she have a friend walk her to her car in an unlit parking lot at night, it would assume a civil authority over my personal finances when recommending what age I retire (through adjusting how much Social Security I get depending on when I start)..... the list would be endless, and it's just not true. It can't be an assumption of civil authority over just religion, religion is not that special (legally speaking). This would just be common sense, to see one naturally follows the other.FredFlash said:
A leader has a certain obligation to those he leads, and many presidents (including right there in the beginning, including the architect of the Constitution) chose to meet those obligations. They were not governmental recommendations, they were leader's recommendations. The difference is in whether they established anything.
Another way of looking at that quote would be to say that, in offering their advise, they need to make sure it does not hold the weight of their office - meaning that they don't vote or sign their religious beliefs, but their constitutional obligations. What they believe as a person may not always be how they cast their ballot.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Wow, what the hell are you talking about?FredFlash said:
Sure they can, if they issue some kind of rule to follow, some discriminatory practice for not following, or in some other way meet the hurdle of "Congress shall make no law..." Otherwise, they're just words.
"EVERY American"? Of course not. That would be absurd. But, do you not believe that the general makeup of the population can be summarized?
To which god does that refer? I believe it refers to every god the American public trusts. It's an encompassing statement, not a divisive one, as it refers to no specific god, and over 80% of the population believes in one or another form of a god.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I demonstrated the population today, by over 80%, considers themselves to believe in a god. By what standard do you claim this false?FredFlash said:
But, see, there is no test, no government declaring each man's religious principles. There is no real difference in placing the statement "In God We Trust" on our money than in printing the Census Bureau document that delineates that statement through the statistical sampling. It's like saying "English is the Language We Speak". It's not true for 100% of the people, it's not the law, it's not upheld through the documents the government produces, it's not discriminatory....It's a statement of fact for the vast majority of the people with no establishment at all.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You really can't think of any?FredFlash said:
Dept of Education
Housing and Urban Development
Social Security
NEA
Off the top of my head, those would be some of the more expensive ones.