Ruling: No Separation of Church and State?

Neither the British nor the Australian parliamentary system was able to prevent a foolish Iraq policy.

---

Impeach Bush.

uh, yeah. that's because they were following us. which in itself was stupid, i agree, but i tell you. blair sure did hear it from the rest of the country. also: no, please don't impeach bush. you know who'd be left in charge of the country?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-24-2005 03:27 PM

---

אָרַח

holmes writes:

quote:

---

First of all the "national motto" is E Pluribus Unum.

---

Not anymore it isn't. It hasn't been "E Pluribus Unum" for decades. It was changed to "In God We Trust" around the same time as "under god" was put into the Pledge. Its origin as a motto (though not the national motto) was from the time of the Civil War and was done by Christians for Christians as the historical information on the US Mint's web site claims. In a letter by Rev. M. R. Watkinson to Secretary Chase: Am I not the only one seeing the similarities between this sentiment and Falwell's claim that the reason the US was attacked on September 11 is because "god removed his shield of protection"?Interestingly, Theodore Roosevelt didn't approve of the motto on coins: He didn't mind it being put on buildings and monuments and places where the point is to indicate a lofty, emotional sense, but to put it on coins and stamps would cheapen it. Interestingly, this is the exact argument used by the Supreme Court in claiming that the phrase "under god" in the Pledge is not an endorsement of religion: It is so innocuous, so without meaning, so cheap, as it were, that it doesn't actually mean, you know, "god."Eisenhower signed into law the change from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" on Jul 30, 1956.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nuggin responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The true power of the US government, as was intended from the very beginning, lies among all three branches.

---

​

That's not entirely true. There are checks and balances, but look at them.

​

The Executive can veto the Congress, but the Congress can over turn the Veto.

---

Yes, which the Supreme Court can then overturn. Which the Congress can then adapt to and the people can rewrite the Constitution to change. Let's not forget that the Executive is the one who nominates judges to the Court which then requires approval from the Senate. It isn't as if the Congress gets to have its way all the time.

quote:

---

The Congress can oust the President, the President can not throw out a Congressman.

---

The President can indict and jail a Congressman and prevent him from doing his job. Law enforcement is part of the Executive. This is why the claim from Bush that Congress had access to the same intelligence information as he had is so disingenuous: The Congress can only have the intelligence information that the Executive wants them to have. The CIA and the FBI and the NSA and all the other law enforcement agencies report to the President, not Congress. Congress can subpoena witnesses, but the President can declare executive privilege or declare the material classified and thus out of the reach of Congress.

quote:

---

The Supreme Court can strike down a law of Congress - (BEST PART OF THE GOVERNMENT!!!) but they can not generate law themselves.

---

Not true. There's a great deal of brou-ha-ha these days about "activist judges" and "judges making law," but that is not the tradition of the court system, certainly not at the time of the Founding Fathers that all of these so-called "originalists" seem to worship so much.You're right that judges don't create law in the same way that legislators do. However, a judge can provide for remedies and their pronouncements have profound effects upon the law. A judge has the power to say, "The law says thus-and-so should happen but that law is unconstitutional. Instead, such-and-such is going to happen." And that judgement remains precedent until such time as Congress gets around to doing something about it.And as check to that, the Judical branch can make pronouncements all it wants, but it has no power to enforce them. Let us not forget, the Supreme Court had ruled that the forcible removal of the Cherokee was illegal to which Andrew Jackson responded, "Mr. Justice Marshall has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."

quote:

---

Only Congress can declare war.

---

Yep. But only the President can wage it. Congress can declare war all it wants but we won't actually go to war unless the President orders the troops to engage.

quote:

---

The original lay out clearly puts more power in Congress (where is should reside, since it's a deliberative body).

---

Incorrect. The original lay out clearly puts the power distribution equally among the branches. If you ever get out to Philadelphia, I suggest you go to the Constitution Center.

quote:

---

The founders were sick of power residing in one man (King) and having him wield it unchecked.

---

Indeed. That's why they split it up among three branches. They didn't just replace the Monarch with a Parliament. You have to remember that. The British government at the time was not just the King. There was Parliament, too. The United States is one of the few democracies in the world without a Parliament (and off the top of my head, I can't think of another.) It's quite telling that of all the talk we've had about "spreading democracy" to other nations, not once have we ever established an American form of government. It's always been parliamentary. We just established a parliament in Iraq.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Funkaloyd writes:

quote:

---

Y'all need a parliamentary system.

---

Oh, hell, no. You think party politics is bad in the US, try it in a Parliamentary system where you don't choose your representative. Your party does. And while Israel has a direct election for prime minister, most parliamentary systems don't. In the Westminster system (used by the UK, Canada, Australia, etc.), the prime minister is appointed by the head of state (in the Commonwealth countries, that would be Queen Elizabeth.)The right is so completely controlled by the religious zealots and the neocons, there would be no hope but to see the US slide the last few centimeters into fascism.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

arachnophilia writes:

quote:

---

no, please don't impeach bush. you know who'd be left in charge of the country?

---

There is no reason not to impeach Cheney in the process. He is up to his ears in the same problems that Bush has. It is well known that he is intimately involved in the policy decisions that have led to the Iraq war.The problem with impeachment of Bush isn't who would be left behind but that people are too afraid to go through with it to completely clean house. Impeach Bush and Cheney and follow through on the indictments of the cabinet and Congressmembers and you will find that the government has been removed from Republican control.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

In NZ's system at least (MMP/AMS), you get to chose one of your representatives. Whereas in the United States, the president is chosen by the Electoral College. But both the EC and British monarchy are nothing more than unimportant vessels of tradition, with no de facto power.

now, see, "impeach bush and cheney!" is a slogan i'll stand behind. and while were at it, "fire rove!" yeah, see, we're afraid of real democracy here. have you see the current indictment list? jesus. you'd think that after enough times people would start to figure out that it's not these "liberal activist judges" but actually a case of some wrong-doing.

---

אָרַח

Okay. Assume you impeach, try and convict the President and Vice-President. Then you would have Hassert as President. Next is Ted Stevens, then Conddie Rice.Not a great prospect.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I was aware of the institution of IGWT, as well as the letter you quoted (and the significance of what that means). However, from what I understand E Pluribus Unum is still our motto, and the longest standing one. IGWT was placed as a motto, but not in a way that it wholly replaced EPU. Technically we have two.I'm open to evidence against this.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

http://usscouts.org/flag/sealmotto.html
The National Mottos
In God We TrustThe national motto originated with Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase during the Civil War. Prompted by a letter from Rev. M. R. Watkinson, of Ridleyville, Pennsylvania asking for a recognition of "the Almighty God in some form in our coins.", Chase requested Congress to pass a law changing the composition of the 2-cent piece to include the motto "In God we trust". The law as passed on April 22, 1864. Eventually the motto appeared on many U.S. coins and currencies.When the double eagle and eagle of new design appeared in 1907, it was soon discovered that the motto had been omitted. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the act of May 18, 1908, made mandatory its appearance upon all coins which it had heretofore appeared. The act approved July 11, 1955, makes appearance of the motto "In God we trust" mandatory upon all coins of the United States. (69 Stat. 290. 31 U.S. Code 324a)On July 30, 1956 a law was passed stating that "the national motto of the United States is hereby declared to be 'In God we trust'." (70 Stat. 732. 36 U.S. Code 186). The House Judiciary Committee recognized that the phrase E Pluribus Unum had also received wide usage in the United States, and the joint resolution did not repeal or prohibit its use as a national motto. In 1963 the Department of State took the following position: "'In God we trust'" is the motto of the United States. It seems to the Department, nevertheless, that there is ample basis both in history and in law for calling 'E Pluribus Unum' a motto of the United States." The Congress has used both.

I've noted that before.For those who think the US style government is the best in the world, it is curious that not more is said about the forms of government the Botch Administration is busy setting up in Afghanistan and Iraq -- if we are truly concerned with establishing freedom and democracy and the great american way eh?What is truly curious is that no real thought has gone into developing any improved system beyond either the US or a parilamentary system.I would think this would be something the UN could develop, knowing that new governments will be created, that dictatorships will fall and leave a vacuum -- why not have a model govenment that could be adapted? Or have we really plumbed the depths of forms of government and this is all there is?ps -- you could consider the Congress to be a parliamentary body, complete with their own selected leader, just that he has no authority outside congress. You could also consider the Senate to be similar to the House of Lords in the way they represent the states. The division of power is more about having redundant mechanisms (checks and balances) than about the actual kind of body - and the way it is run - involved in the process of making and enforcing laws, and the real difference is having the President independent of the {Congress\Senate}.I don't think the Judiciary is sufficiently independent from the executive branch however.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topicWe need to impeach and remove Cheney, they get some decent Republican/Conservative in as VP. They impeach/remove GWB (aka Shrub).I'm a bad off-topic MooseOff-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic Off-topic

yeah, seriously. you know, btw, that they don't actually follow that order, right?

---

אָרַח

No, enlighten me.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion