Tag Archives: US Constitution

national news, political news, religious news

No place for religious bigotry

2 Comments

ellison

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., is one of just two Muslim members of Congress.

He has just posted this item on social media. I feel compelled to share it here.

He is answering two leading Republican presidential candidates’ recent assertions about those who practice the Islamic faith.

Ellison writes:

“The freedom of religion is a founding principle of our nation. Our Constitution gives this right to all Americans – including elected officials. For Ben Carson, Donald Trump, or any other Republican politician to suggest that someone of any faith is unfit for office is out of touch with who we are as a people. It’s unimaginable that the leading GOP presidential candidates are resorting to fear mongering to benefit their campaigns, and every American should be disturbed that these national figures are engaging in and tolerating blatant acts of religious bigotry.”

I believe I’ll let Rep. Ellison’s words stand on their own.

 

religious news

Muslims, Christians … whatever

Image #: 21630241 Dr. Benjamin Carson, director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, speaks to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, March 16, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS HEALTH) REUTERS /JONATHAN ERNST /LANDOV

Ben Carson now has weighed in on the matter of religion and politics.

The good doctor’s take: Americans shouldn’t elect a Muslim as president, apparently because he believes the faith isn’t compatible with the U.S. Constitution.

Carson weighs in

I’m trying to find where in the Constitution it speaks to its compatibility with any religion. The only thing I can determine is that the Constitution — the finished document — is expressly non-religious. It doesn’t condone any religion. Not Christianity, or Judaism, not Islam, not Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto.

Surely, Dr. Carson — one of 16 individuals seeking the Republican presidential nomination — knows this. Doesn’t he?

It’s neutral. Get it? The only reference I can find even to the word “religion” is in Article VI, where it declares “no religious test” shall be given to anyone seeking public office anywhere in the United States of America.

How about we not talk about whether one’s religious faith qualifies — or disqualifies — him or her from serving a nation that comprises people of many faiths?

 

national news, political news, religious news

Religious intolerance is alive and kicking

liberty religion

The fellow who stood up in that Donald Trump town hall event and made those disparaging remarks about Muslims brings to mind a serious hypocrisy that fuels so much of today’s political debate.

You’ll recall the guy who said that Muslims present a problem in this country and he asked Trump how should the federal government “get rid” of those who adhere to Islam. Trump, of course, didn’t condemn the remarks as being bigoted and hateful.

It struck me, though, that so many on the right and far right keep saying two mutually exclusive things.

They keep harping on “religious liberty,” and accuse those on the left of “declaring war on Christians and Christianity.” The leader of that anti-Christian movement, in their eyes, is the president of the United States, who many of them believe is a closet Muslim.

Well, “religious liberty” is written into the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It’s a cherished civil right that — as I understand it — means that all Americans are free to practice whatever religion they wish.

That includes those who believe in Islam.

Why, then, do some — maybe many, for all I know — keep insisting, as that Trump town-hall yahoo said the other evening, that Muslims need to be shut down, silenced, denied their basic right to practice their religion?

That is precisely what that guy said, to applause from the rest of the crowd who had come to listen to Trump.

Do they believe in “religious liberty” for all … or just those who believe as they do?

 

State news

Group stains secessionists' name

Texas secessionists have enough of a negative reputation that they don’t need another stain on their soiled reputation.

But by golly, here comes a group that takes the argument a nonsensical step farther.

The “Republic of Texas” says the state, which joined the Union in 1845 after being independent for nine years, never really became part of the United States of America. This group meets monthly in what it calls a joint session of congress. It manufactures its own money.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/secede-%e2%80%98republic%e2%80%99-claims-texas-never-joined-us/ar-AA9yzL9

These yahoos even claim some type of diplomatic immunity by presenting ID cards to police officers who stop them for committing infractions of various natures.

The Republic of Texas went too far, according to the FBI, in ordering a judge in Kerrville to appear in a “court hearing” involving his foreclosure order on a Republic member’s home. The FBI broke into a meeting the group was conducting, didn’t arrest anyone but made it known that the federal agency took a dim view of the stunts the group is trying to pull.

Interestingly, the disruption of the meeting apparently ginned up some support for this fringiest of fringe groups. Amazing, indeed.

Man, I don’t know how to process all of this. We live in crazy times, I suppose. Any group can do just about anything, short of advocating for the violent overthrow of the government — which always has been the case, given our First Amendment rights written into the U.S. Constitution.

However … why this group? And why in Texas, for crying out loud?

Our state has enough public relations issues with which to deal without having to answer for the shenanigans of these loons.

 

legal news, national news, political news

10th vs. 14th amendments in gay marriage hearing

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to decide the fate of same-sex marriage in the United States.

Good luck, justices.

At issue are two questions: Whether states must allow same-sex couples to marry and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages that take place out-of-state. The case will decide the fates of same-sex marriage bans in Tennessee, Michigan, Kentucky and Ohio.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/supreme-court-to-decide-if-states-can-ban-gay-marriage/ar-AA8gjVE

Here is where I believe the case should turn: Which amendment to the U.S. Constitution has more sway in deciding this matter, the 10th or the 14th?

The 10th is the final amendment outlining the Bill of Rights. It says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserves to the states respectively, or to the people.”

That’s pretty clear, yes? It means the states have power not reserved by the Constitution for the federal government.

OK, then came the 14th Amendment, ratified not long after the Civil War. It’s much lengthier and covers a lot of issues relating to rights of citizenship. But at the end of Section 1, it states that no state “shall 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.”

Granted, the nine men and women of the nation’s highest court know a lot more about the law and the Constitution than I do, but my reading of the issue at hand is pretty clear. I believe the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th.

The issue as I see it is whether gay couples have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. The Constitution, as federal judges have been ruling already, says they do. The Constitution lays out clearly that citizens shall not be deprived of “equal protection.” If that language in the 14th Amendment didn’t exist, I suppose you could argue that states — such as Texas — have the legal standing to ban same-sex marriage.

I do believe, though, that the language contained within the 14th Amendment makes it impossible for states to enact laws that override the Constitution.

There well may be some nuance that I’m missing. If it’s buried deep inside the language of the nation’s founding document, I’m sure the justices will find it.

I just don’t see how they can look past the clear and explicit language contained in the equal protection clause.

 

national news

What about the 'Three Rs' in South Carolina?

South Carolina legislators want to teach public school students there a lesson about the Constitution. They want also to require teachers spend three weeks each school year teaching students about the Second Amendment, the one that deals with gun ownership.

Three weeks on one amendment to the nation’s founding document?

And it’s the one dealing with guns?

What kind of craziness is occurring over yonder in the Palmetto State?

South Carolina Law Would Make Kids Study Second Amendment for 3 Weeks Every Year

Take a look at this: “As Ian Millhiser at Think Progress points out, that’s an enormous chunk of the school year, especially given that some South Carolina schools devote just two weeks to slavery and a week and a half to World War II.”

OK, that comes from Mother Jones, a publication not exactly friendly to the issues favored by the National Rifle Association. But Millhiser makes a good point about educational priorities.

Republican South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has an A+ NRA rating. Both legislative chambers are controlled by Republicans. Of course, the Second Amendment is arguably the favorite amendment among the GOP, right along with the 10th, which lays out powers that states can assume when they aren’t covered by the federal government.

South Carolina’s public school students don’t need to be required to study one amendment — even if it’s the one that allows Americans to “keep and bear arms.”

That’s more important than the that guarantees free speech and freedom of religion? Or the one that guarantees all citizens “equal protection” under federal law?

As Mother Jones reports: “‘Even amongst a conservative constituency in South Carolina, I think they can rate that they have more abiding problems than this,’ says Dave Woodard, a political science professor at Clemson University who’s long served as a political consultant to Republican candidates in South Carolina.

“‘Most people are more concerned with math and science, and the fact that historically, South Carolina’s rankings in education have been abysmal. Nobody, I think, would say ‘The best way to improve education is to have a three-week segment on the Second Amendment. Boy, that’ll move us up in the national rankings!'”

The idea is nutty.

 

legal news

Feds aren't seeking to create 'moral standard'

Here’s a shocker: The Texas Legislature and its Republican super-majority in the House of Representatives is likely to consider legislation that blocks any effort to lift the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

OK, it’s not a shocker. I was kidding.

State Rep. Cecil Bell, R-Magnolia, has filed House Bill 623 that would prevent the federal courts or the Congress from legalizing same-sex marriage.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/08/no-salaries-for-recognizing-gay-marriage-bill-says/

According to the Texas Tribune: “The federal government is trying to act to create moral standards, and that’s just not acceptable,” Bell said.

Let’s hold on for a moment.

I do not believe the feds are seeking to “create moral standards” with court rulings striking down same-sex marriage laws in several states. The impetus behind the rulings — in every instance — has been the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants full rights of citizenship to every American citizen. Full rights of citizenship means that every American is guaranteed “equal protection” under the law.

That means, quite clearly, that if you love someone who happens to be of the same sex as you, the Constitution gives you the right — as a citizen — to marry that individual, just as any citizen is able to marry someone of the opposite gender.

The Tribune reports: “The bill also requires state courts to dismiss legal actions that challenge a provision of the bill and award legal costs and attorney fees to the defendants. Citing the 11th Amendment, which gives states sovereign immunity, the bill also says the state isn’t subject to a lawsuit for complying with the act — regardless of a contradictory federal ruling.”

But wait, says a gay-rights group. Again, from the Tribune: “Daniel Williams, a legislative specialist for the gay rights group Equality Texas, said the bill would go against legal precedent.

“’This bill is retreading very well-established precedent here. In 1869, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Texas v. White that no, Texas does may not ignore federal law whenever it wants,’ Williams said. ‘Beyond it ignoring federal law, it would actually punish state employees who follow the law.’”

The setting of a “moral standard” is not at issue here. Adhering to federal law is what’s at stake.

national news, political news, State news

Gay marriage on its way … to Texas?

Do you ever feel as though you’re swimming against a tide that keeps getting stronger while it sucks the energy out of your efforts to fight it?

That’s how I’m feeling with this gay marriage issue.

I’m still grappling with the notion that it’s all right for people of the same sex to marry each other. I’m a traditionalist and my own values make it hard for me to embrace the idea of same-sex marriage as being the same as the marriage I have enjoyed for the past 43-plus years.

OK, I’ve laid down that marker.

I also understand what the law says, what’s in the U.S. Constitution and how all Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Thus, it appears that states’ bans on gay marriage appear doomed.

That notion I will accept.

Florida has just begun allowing same-sex couples to marry. Federal judges — those damn “unelected judges,” in the eyes of conservatives — keep overturning state bans on same-sex marriage. A federal judge in Texas has ruled that our state’s ban — written into the Texas Constitution — violates the federal Constitution’s equal protection clause stated in the 14th Amendment. It grants full rights of citizenship to anyone born in the United States with zero regard to that people’s sexual orientation.

All of this makes perfect sense to me. If the states are governed by a federal framework — the Constitution — then the states are obligated to obey the rules set down within that framework.

Does any of this mean that all Americans must embrace the idea of same-sex partners getting married? Honestly, no.

All it means to me is that the law is the law and that states cannot impose their own laws that supersede the Constitution of the United States of America.

That includes bans on same-sex marriage.

I can feel that tide of political and cultural change getting stronger all the time.

 

national news, political news

Rev. Huckabee joins growing GOP field

It’s official, or practically so.

Mike Huckabee is going to run for president of the United States in 2016. He quit his Fox News Channel talk show amid signs he is getting set to make his decision.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/mike-huckabee-ends-talk-show-weighs-presidential-run-113948.html?hp=t3_r

He’s a former Arkansas governor. He’s glib and funny. He’s also a staunch conservative.

Let me re-introduce an element that is likely to play a role in a Huckabee presidential campaign. He’s an ordained Southern Baptist preacher.

Why is that important? Many Americans are going to look to someone such as Huckabee strictly because of his well-known, firmly established and say-it-loud Christian faith. They’ll rally to his side for that reason chiefly — if not exclusively.

It certainly isn’t a disqualifier. Heck, I’m a practicing Christian myself. All of our presidents have shared the basic tenets of my faith. I’ve never voted for a president on that basis.

Indeed, the Democratic Party has had its share of clergy running for president. Rev. Jesse Jackson ran twice in the 1980s, as did Rev. Al Sharpton in 2008.

However, the Constitution states clearly that there should be no religious test for anyone seeking any public office. I have taken that to mean that I, as a voter, need not consider a candidate’s religious faith as a reason to vote for him or her. I choose not to go there.

Huckabee’s fellow Republicans are getting ready for him. Rand Paul is attacking Huckabee’s tax policy while he was Arkansas governor, just as he has targeted Jeb Bush’s “moderation” while he served as governor of Florida.

The GOP field is expanding. Huckabee could be one of the more interesting candidates running. Look for him to play to his party’s evangelical base. Hey, with a Baptist ordination in his hip pocket, he’s got something none of the other GOP hopefuls can claim.

 

International news, national news

Off your duff, Congress, and move on immigration

If nothing else at all, President Obama’s decision to proceed with an executive order delaying the deportation of 5 million illegal immigrants has shamed Congress into doing something — anything! — constructive to engage in this debate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/republicans-no-immigration-response-113091.html?hp=c2_3

There’s been a lot of accusatory talk from Republicans about the president defying “the will the people,” or “circumventing the Constitution,” or even acting “lawlessly.”

They have no plan.

The Senate did pass an immigration reform bill a year or so ago, but the House of Representatives sat on it. They dithered and dilly-dallied, stalled and stymied any move to enact some improvements in federal law that bottles up efforts by undocumented immigrants to attain legal status and work toward eventual citizenship.

So now Obama has taken action.

I keep looking at the order he signed and wonder: What is in it that angers the GOP so much?

It prioritizes the arrest and deportation of criminals; it seeks to put more federal security on our southern border; it enables children of illegal immigrants who were born in the United States to stay with their parents; it allows illegal immigrants to, as Obama said, “come out the shadow” and work openly and, yes, pay federal personal income taxes.

My main objection to the order was in its timing. I believe the president should have waited for the new Congress to take its seat. Oh well, he ignored the advice from a middle-of-the-country blogger. My feelings aren’t hurt, Mr. President.

Now it falls on Congress to get off its collective duff and approve a comprehensive immigration reform bill that helps restore the nation’s role as being the Land of Opportunity for all.