So Help me God a question? Ed run around Constitutiional issues?
buckeye
______________________________
To return to "So help me God" for a moment, the secular activist Michael
Newdow [for whom Ray Soller did research] recently sued to bar Justice
Roberts from using "so help me God" in the oath for Obama to repeat, since
the phrase doesn't appear in the oath of office as written.
Newdow lost his bid for an injunction, but will appeal with an eye to 2013.
When Justice John Paul Stevens administered the oath to VP Joe Biden today,
he said, "So help me God" for Biden to repeat, which he did.
However, Justice Roberts instead made it a question---"So help you God?"
"So help me God," replied President Obama.
Newdow's initial bid for an injunction was denied on First Amendment
grounds of Obama's right to free expression of religion. It's possible that
by turning the phrase into a question, Justice Roberts may have found a
clever way around Newdow's very narrow argument that the Chief Justice, as
a government official, cannot issue religious tests. Since one may swear or
affirm in taking the oath, to tell the Chief Justice beforehand that one
intends to swear might be enough to dodge the prohibition against religious
tests.
Now, whether that argument would hold up throughout the appeal process, who
knows? But I have no doubt that the Chief Justice rephrased "So help me
God" as a question precisely with Michael Newdow and his ilk in mind. Or
perhaps it was President Obama's idea. I think we'll find out more about
this.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Darkwing
"buckeye" <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3sego4p1hhjsfn74v...@4ax.com...
I think they need to change it to a "pinkie swear" at the end or maybe a
"double dog dare".