A president or a self proclaimed pope

[cigar no baka]

"Separation of Church and State" never appears in the Constitution but rather in the dicta of a Supreme Court Decision.

That being said, the so-called doctrine of "Separation of Church and State" does not mean that the President (or any other government official) cannot be a religious person or make religious references in speeches or statements.

Here is the text of the First Amendment:

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

The first part is generally referred to as the "Establishment Clause" and merely states that the government cannot establish a "government religion". The second part is generally referred to as the "Free Exercise" clause and allows for everyone (even the President of the United States) to freely practice and believe in any religion he or she chooses.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" was contained in a Supreme Court decision and it was even commented on by a Justice that it was likely a poor choice of words and that it would be misunderstood. Today if you asked 1000 people where that phrase was found 999 of them would say with conviction that it is found in our Constitution. Today this phraase is being used as a tool to remove all aspects of religion from our government, schools, and any other public area. You may recall the recent attacks on our Pledge of Allegiance, the removal of the Ten Comandments in many courthouses, and now a renewed attack on the phrase "In God We Trust" printed on all of our money.

There is no difference between these attacks to remove ALL religion or reference to God and the establishment of a government sanctioned religion. The interpretation of "Separation of Church and State" has become so mired in politics and misunderstanding that the actual words of the Constitution have been forgotten.

Go read the Constitution and you will be surprised at what you will find.

The "living consititution" crowd doesn't care what the words in the Constitution say. They believe you can "interpret" it any way you want as long as you have enough power and can enforce it. That's working out well for them now, but that pendulum can swing the other way, and then they will wish they had stuck with the strict interpretation crowd all along. The Constitution means exactly what it says, not more or less. You want to add more or less, get an amendment passed, don't get tyrannical judges to make constituional changes for us.

[bigpoppapuff]

Sid and Barry sitting in a tree.
S-U-C-K-I-N-G...

verrry classy...i'm supposed to be on ignore....hey baka...the war is on and you'll lose...

respond to this you spineless girl...

[SuperChuck]

The Constitution means exactly what it says, not more or less. You want to add more or less, get an amendment passed, don't get tyrannical judges to make constituional changes for us.

Partially correct, but to paraquote President Clinton, "That depends on what your definition of is is".

Like anything that's written down, it's subject to interpretation. The authors are dead and buried, so we can't ask them what they meant.

In the United States, the job of interpreting the Constitution and its amendments is the job of the Supreme Court. We hope that Presidents assign fair and knowledgeable judges and that they do a good job of interpretation.

[jaewing]

Partially correct, but to paraquote President Clinton, "That depends on what your definition of is is".

Like anything that's written down, it's subject to interpretation. The authors are dead and buried, so we can't ask them what they meant.

In the United States, the job of interpreting the Constitution and its amendments is the job of the Supreme Court. We hope that Presidents assign fair and knowledgeable judges and that they do a good job of interpretation.

You are correct in that the Supreme Court is charged with interpretation of the Constitution. However, it has gotten way out of control and they have been stretching the meaning of interpret to the limit.

At least in this Strict Constructionist's view.

[WhiteWidow]

My favorite is how EVERYTHING falls under federal jusrisdiction because of interstate commerce.

[SmokinDVM]

The Supreme Court taking their interpretations of the US Constitution too far?

I think it really depends on your particular position pertaining to the decision at hand. If you agree with the decision, you think they were doing a fantastic and fair job. But, if you are on the other side, you think they are pushing the envelope.
Same thing with the bullshit term, "Activist Judges".
Obviously, they're only "activists" if you don't like their decision.

In reality, it's all business as usual.

[cigar no baka]

You are correct in that the Supreme Court is charged with interpretation of the Constitution. However, it has gotten way out of control and they have been stretching the meaning of interpret to the limit.

At least in this Strict Constructionist's view.

Agreed. Right to privacy and separation of church and state are two of the most egregious "interpretations" inserted into the constitution without the will of the people being heard through the legal means of amending the constitution.

And show me where in the constitution does it give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution? I remember that being a power they asserted for themselves by "interpreting" the constitution which makes it double damned. The interpreted the Constitution to say that they have the power to "interpret" the Constitution, didn't they?

[WhiteWidow]

Agreed. Right to privacy and separation of church and state are two of the most egregious "interpretations" inserted into the constitution without the will of the people being heard through the legal means of amending the constitution.

And show me where in the constitution does it give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution? I remember that being a power they asserted for themselves by "interpreting" the constitution which makes it double damned. The interpreted the Constitution to say that they have the power to "interpret" the Constitution, didn't they?

Not too sure about that, I always remember learning that was basically their "check" in the check and balance system.

[jaewing]

Not too sure about that, I always remember learning that was basically their "check" in the check and balance system.

Yes I believe that is true.