Does anyone actually expect the Supreme Court will say, "No, you can't do this, it's unconstitutional?", assuming this case even gets that far?
I don't know whether it will happen in this generation and with this Supreme Court, but it's bound to happen eventually. If it does happen now, it'll signal the beginning of the end of "god" on our money and in our pledge. It came from the same time period as those two... the fifties, in the middle of the red scare.
And again, how is the celebration of Christmas as a national holiday constitutional and this not?
Because federal holidays are for employment purposes. They serve the secular purpose of allowing federal employees to smoothly take off work on days that most of them would be taking off anyway. They do not call for or encourage anyone to celebrate those holidays. They do not encourage people to participate in religious activities. The National Day of Prayer, despite your straw-grasping attempts to find one, does not serve a secular purpose.
Erm... I never said this ever.
Question I have is this: National Days of Prayer have happened before, all the time during the Bush Administration, and apparently they will in this administration. Does anyone actually expect the Supreme Court will say, "No, you can't do this, it's unconstitutional?", assuming this case even gets that far?
Indeed, National Days of Prayer have occurred yearly since the 1950's, when Truman signed the original law. Will the current Supreme Court strike them down? My guess would be no, simply because there are multiple justices on the court who would relish the opportunity to nullify the Lemon test.
That said, this would hardly be the first time the Supreme Court has struck down a long-running government violation of the First Amendment. See for example McCreary County.
Indeed, National Days of Prayer have occurred yearly since the 1950's, when Truman signed the original law. Will the current Supreme Court strike them down? My guess would be no, simply because there are multiple justices on the court who would relish the opportunity to nullify the Lemon test.
That said, this would hardly be the first time the Supreme Court has struck down a long-running government violation of the First Amendment. See for example McCreary County.
Which is kind of where I'm going with this. This is really a discussion on two levels here, because the Supreme Court has the power to change the precedent. We'll just have to see whether or not it does in this case.
Completely agree with the ruling. Precedents and all, it's an unconstitutional act to call for prayer for any purpose if you are a member of government.
And Highroller, you're tripping all over yourself here. Quit while you're... behind?
here is a little thing that i am going to highlight just because it changes the tone of the debate a bit.
The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.
the word may. is an optional expression. meaning you are not forced to. you can choose not to do it. it has become more of a ritual than anything else.
kinda like in magic. during your upkeep you may. it means you have a choice no one if forcing you or anyone else.
just like with the when that moron judge in CA decided to make the pledge unconstitutional. the president should by all means acknowledge this as more of a historical precident that was started with george washington himself.
the judge just violated the 1st amendment herself.
1. there was not an establishment of religion.
2. she was impeding the free exercise of religion.
i think we need new judges since they have issues in reading the constitution.
the first thing washington did was to say a prayer for this new country.
this will go to the SC and they will overturn it just like they overturned the pledge being unconstitutional.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
2. she was impeding the free exercise of religion.
If National Day of Prayer were to be abolished, that is not the same thing as making prayer illegal that day; it would simply take the government sponsorship of prayer away, which in no way impedes people from freely exercising their religious practices.
Remember, whenever a religious group is prevented from hijacking government apparatus for the purpose of advancing or promoting their religious views, that's an unbearable assault on the rights of that religious group to practice their faith. Just being allowed to practice it on your own is entirely insufficient: they demand that the government endorse it as well.
Completely agree with the ruling. Precedents and all, it's an unconstitutional act to call for prayer for any purpose if you are a member of government.
And Highroller, you're tripping all over yourself here. Quit while you're... behind?
Screw you? Maybe some of us are less concerned with winning an argument and view these things as an opportunity where we can, if we come in with misconceptions, be corrected.
Anyway, thank you Tiax for highlighting the nuances, although that still strikes me as rubbish.
In other words similar to what I was saying earlier - context is important.
Force bad, suggest OK.
By this reasoning, would it not also be acceptable for the government to have a National Day of Confession where people are encouraged to go to their local church and confess their sins?
re: "may"
The use of the word "may" either renders the day trivial, since anyone may pray on any day as it is, or represents a tacit endorsement of and favor toward religions in which prayer plays a role. In the first case the NDoP is irrelevant and, in the second it is unconstitutional.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When you really know somebody, you can't hate them...or maybe it's just that you can't really know them until you stop hating them."
Just because it isn't forced doesn't mean it isn't the government sponsoring religion. Though I bet this is just going to be one of those "Red Scare" things that leave a silly legacy on the country such as fox news being able to whip a bunch of people into an anti democrat hysteria (the tea party) by simply suggesting to them that Obama is a "socialist"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I am not posting in the custom card creation forum something has gone horribely wrong.
re: "may"
The use of the word "may" either renders the day trivial, since anyone may pray on any day as it is, or represents a tacit endorsement of and favor toward religions in which prayer plays a role. In the first case the NDoP is irrelevant and, in the second it is unconstitutional.
I don't think you'll have much argument from anyone regarding the triviality of the day. It's trivial. It's somewhat pointless, because "encouraging prayer" without encouraging prayer to a certain deity serves pretty much no purpose (in my mind at least).
That said, a district court doesn't have the power to overturn a statute, and I really don't see a case or controversy here. The public cannot just bring suits arguing "this is unconstitutional". There has to be an injured party. If anything my prediction would be that this case will get appealed, and the Federal Appellate court will overturn judge's decision on the grounds that the plaintiff didn't have standing to bring the suit.
If you can find even a passably plausible argument that a "national day of prayer" caused an actionable injury then I'll believe that it could be brought that high.
I don't think you'll have much argument from anyone regarding the triviality of the day. It's trivial. It's somewhat pointless, because "encouraging prayer" without encouraging prayer to a certain deity serves pretty much no purpose (in my mind at least).
That said, a district court doesn't have the power to overturn a statute, and I really don't see a case or controversy here. The public cannot just bring suits arguing "this is unconstitutional". There has to be an injured party. If anything my prediction would be that this case will get appealed, and the Federal Appellate court will overturn judge's decision on the grounds that the plaintiff didn't have standing to bring the suit.
If you can find even a passably plausible argument that a "national day of prayer" caused an actionable injury then I'll believe that it could be brought that high.
It's possible, because Supreme Court precedent on standing is all over the place. However, in First Amendment cases there must be a standing to sue, because otherwise the First Amendment is entirely toothless. If there is no recourse against government violation of the Amendment, what good is it?
In general, the standard on injury for a First Amendment case is different than other civil suits. The First Amendment protects against certain government actions, and as such the people of the country are 'injured' (in the sense that they should then have standing to file suit) when the government takes those actions.
While I think you might be right that this gets dismissed on standing grounds, I think that it sets, or rather continues, a dangerous precedent that erodes not only Establishment protections, but all the protections in the Bill of Rights.
While I think you might be right that this gets dismissed on standing grounds, I think that it sets, or rather continues, a dangerous precedent that erodes not only Establishment protections, but all the protections in the Bill of Rights.
I disagree with this, primarily because the bill of rights are established to prevent the government from infringing on the rights of individual citizens. Any such infringement is, in and of itself, actionable and the person who's rights were infringed could sue. The catch is, here, there are no rights being infringed. The question isn't about individual rights, so much as about the way the government works.
This legal theory is also why I think the original framers did not intend for separation of church and state to mean that the state could do nothing at all that could encourage or discourage religions, but that it was intended that they could not establish directly or by default a state religion -- which this act doesn't.
To be fair, this is not a well settled area of law by any means. The true scope of the establishment clause is constantly being questioned and tested with inconsistent results. For what its worth I think it probably always will be.
I disagree with this, primarily because the bill of rights are established to prevent the government from infringing on the rights of individual citizens. Any such infringement is, in and of itself, actionable and the person who's rights were infringed could sue. The catch is, here, there are no rights being infringed. The question isn't about individual rights, so much as about the way the government works.
This legal theory is also why I think the original framers did not intend for separation of church and state to mean that the state could do nothing at all that could encourage or discourage religions, but that it was intended that they could not establish directly or by default a state religion -- which this act doesn't.
To be fair, this is not a well settled area of law by any means. The true scope of the establishment clause is constantly being questioned and tested with inconsistent results. For what its worth I think it probably always will be.
Suppose that the government declared Catholicism the state religion. By your reasoning, no one would have standing, and there would be no recourse.
In my view, any restriction in standing is dangerous, because it removes the right to even have a complaint heard. If the courts don't think this day violates the Establishment Clause, they should make that ruling on its merits, not by denying the case even be heard.
Suppose that the government declared Catholicism the state religion. By your reasoning, no one would have standing, and there would be no recourse.
In my view, any restriction in standing is dangerous, because it removes the right to even have a complaint heard. If the courts don't think this day violates the Establishment Clause, they should make that ruling on its merits, not by denying the case even be heard.
True, but I believe the inherent triviality of the issue is furthermore a point for our democracy. If advent atheist groups are hell bent on something this small, then therefore we've fairly much hit a point of great political freedom for belief.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
True, but I believe the inherent triviality of the issue is furthermore a point for our democracy. If advent atheist groups are hell bent on something this small, then therefore we've fairly much hit a point of great political freedom for belief.
Well, I'd disagree with you on the triviality of it. I think the question of whether the government can proclaim a day of prayer is a pretty fundamental issue for defining the limits of government involvement in religious matters. I think it only seems trivial because this sort of overstepping on the part of the government has been commonplace ever since the First Amendment was ratified.
SHOULD the National Day of Prayer be unconstitutional?
In other words, hypothetical, this gets taken to the Supreme Court, they have the ability to create a new precedent or uphold the current one, what SHOULD they do, in your point of view?
SHOULD the National Day of Prayer be unconstitutional?
In other words, hypothetical, this gets taken to the Supreme Court, they have the ability to create a new precedent or uphold the current one, what SHOULD they do, in your point of view?
Do you mean should it be unconstitutional based on our understanding of the text of the constitution, or should it be unconstitutional based on whether we would like for it to be allowed or not?
It is unconstitutional yes, but assuming the US is the greatest country ever and all that jazz clearly the US is going to be about for thousands of years so you're going to have to get over what politicians in the 18th century thought eventually, after all that is what a democracy is, the majority of Americans call themselves Christians, so I don't see a problem with it.
It's a good thing we're not a direct democracy, then.
The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes
Our bill of rights generally ensures that the majority cannot trample on the basic rights of the minority. Remember that whole "all men are created equal" thing? Separation of church and state is there to protect religion (and non-religion). Religious people benefit from it, rather than being restricted by it. All it would take is, for example, a president who converts to paganism in the middle of his term and signs an executive order declaring a national pagan day of worship or something for people to see this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't know whether it will happen in this generation and with this Supreme Court, but it's bound to happen eventually. If it does happen now, it'll signal the beginning of the end of "god" on our money and in our pledge. It came from the same time period as those two... the fifties, in the middle of the red scare.
Because federal holidays are for employment purposes. They serve the secular purpose of allowing federal employees to smoothly take off work on days that most of them would be taking off anyway. They do not call for or encourage anyone to celebrate those holidays. They do not encourage people to participate in religious activities. The National Day of Prayer, despite your straw-grasping attempts to find one, does not serve a secular purpose.
Indeed, National Days of Prayer have occurred yearly since the 1950's, when Truman signed the original law. Will the current Supreme Court strike them down? My guess would be no, simply because there are multiple justices on the court who would relish the opportunity to nullify the Lemon test.
That said, this would hardly be the first time the Supreme Court has struck down a long-running government violation of the First Amendment. See for example McCreary County.
Which is kind of where I'm going with this. This is really a discussion on two levels here, because the Supreme Court has the power to change the precedent. We'll just have to see whether or not it does in this case.
And Highroller, you're tripping all over yourself here. Quit while you're... behind?
the word may. is an optional expression. meaning you are not forced to. you can choose not to do it. it has become more of a ritual than anything else.
kinda like in magic. during your upkeep you may. it means you have a choice no one if forcing you or anyone else.
just like with the when that moron judge in CA decided to make the pledge unconstitutional. the president should by all means acknowledge this as more of a historical precident that was started with george washington himself.
the judge just violated the 1st amendment herself.
The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion,
1. there was not an establishment of religion.
2. she was impeding the free exercise of religion.
i think we need new judges since they have issues in reading the constitution.
the first thing washington did was to say a prayer for this new country.
this will go to the SC and they will overturn it just like they overturned the pledge being unconstitutional.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
If National Day of Prayer were to be abolished, that is not the same thing as making prayer illegal that day; it would simply take the government sponsorship of prayer away, which in no way impedes people from freely exercising their religious practices.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
Screw you? Maybe some of us are less concerned with winning an argument and view these things as an opportunity where we can, if we come in with misconceptions, be corrected.
Anyway, thank you Tiax for highlighting the nuances, although that still strikes me as rubbish.
However, if I tried to force you to do so, I would be breaking the law.
The act of asking is key.
I don't follow you.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
In other words similar to what I was saying earlier - context is important.
Force bad, suggest OK.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
By this reasoning, would it not also be acceptable for the government to have a National Day of Confession where people are encouraged to go to their local church and confess their sins?
re: "may"
The use of the word "may" either renders the day trivial, since anyone may pray on any day as it is, or represents a tacit endorsement of and favor toward religions in which prayer plays a role. In the first case the NDoP is irrelevant and, in the second it is unconstitutional.
Which, as we discussed earlier, is not how this works.
I don't think you'll have much argument from anyone regarding the triviality of the day. It's trivial. It's somewhat pointless, because "encouraging prayer" without encouraging prayer to a certain deity serves pretty much no purpose (in my mind at least).
That said, a district court doesn't have the power to overturn a statute, and I really don't see a case or controversy here. The public cannot just bring suits arguing "this is unconstitutional". There has to be an injured party. If anything my prediction would be that this case will get appealed, and the Federal Appellate court will overturn judge's decision on the grounds that the plaintiff didn't have standing to bring the suit.
If you can find even a passably plausible argument that a "national day of prayer" caused an actionable injury then I'll believe that it could be brought that high.
It's possible, because Supreme Court precedent on standing is all over the place. However, in First Amendment cases there must be a standing to sue, because otherwise the First Amendment is entirely toothless. If there is no recourse against government violation of the Amendment, what good is it?
In general, the standard on injury for a First Amendment case is different than other civil suits. The First Amendment protects against certain government actions, and as such the people of the country are 'injured' (in the sense that they should then have standing to file suit) when the government takes those actions.
While I think you might be right that this gets dismissed on standing grounds, I think that it sets, or rather continues, a dangerous precedent that erodes not only Establishment protections, but all the protections in the Bill of Rights.
I disagree with this, primarily because the bill of rights are established to prevent the government from infringing on the rights of individual citizens. Any such infringement is, in and of itself, actionable and the person who's rights were infringed could sue. The catch is, here, there are no rights being infringed. The question isn't about individual rights, so much as about the way the government works.
This legal theory is also why I think the original framers did not intend for separation of church and state to mean that the state could do nothing at all that could encourage or discourage religions, but that it was intended that they could not establish directly or by default a state religion -- which this act doesn't.
To be fair, this is not a well settled area of law by any means. The true scope of the establishment clause is constantly being questioned and tested with inconsistent results. For what its worth I think it probably always will be.
Suppose that the government declared Catholicism the state religion. By your reasoning, no one would have standing, and there would be no recourse.
In my view, any restriction in standing is dangerous, because it removes the right to even have a complaint heard. If the courts don't think this day violates the Establishment Clause, they should make that ruling on its merits, not by denying the case even be heard.
True, but I believe the inherent triviality of the issue is furthermore a point for our democracy. If advent atheist groups are hell bent on something this small, then therefore we've fairly much hit a point of great political freedom for belief.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Well, I'd disagree with you on the triviality of it. I think the question of whether the government can proclaim a day of prayer is a pretty fundamental issue for defining the limits of government involvement in religious matters. I think it only seems trivial because this sort of overstepping on the part of the government has been commonplace ever since the First Amendment was ratified.
SHOULD the National Day of Prayer be unconstitutional?
In other words, hypothetical, this gets taken to the Supreme Court, they have the ability to create a new precedent or uphold the current one, what SHOULD they do, in your point of view?
Do you mean should it be unconstitutional based on our understanding of the text of the constitution, or should it be unconstitutional based on whether we would like for it to be allowed or not?
It's a good thing we're not a direct democracy, then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
Our bill of rights generally ensures that the majority cannot trample on the basic rights of the minority. Remember that whole "all men are created equal" thing? Separation of church and state is there to protect religion (and non-religion). Religious people benefit from it, rather than being restricted by it. All it would take is, for example, a president who converts to paganism in the middle of his term and signs an executive order declaring a national pagan day of worship or something for people to see this.