Newdow seeks injuction to prevent P.E. Obama from saying

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1641996' date='Jan 8 2009, 16.48']Doesn't it give you even a slight pause that the Chief Justice can apparently ignore the Constitution at will and add whatever he wants to the oath?[/quote]

Not really. Since this is certainly not the worst transgression against the constitution. I would also argue there is not a violation of the constitution to add something to the oath of office as long as both parties agree to it. If the Chief Justice inserted it and the president refused to say it, then it becomes a legal matter. In this case Newdow does not have standing to challenge.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1642021' date='Jan 8 2009, 16.04']Not really. Since this is certainly not the worst transgression against the constitution. I would also argue there is not a violation of the constitution to add something to the oath of office as long as both parties agree to it. If the Chief Justice inserted it and the president refused to say it, then it becomes a legal matter. In this case Newdow does not have standing to challenge.[/quote]

So as long as that which is added to the Constitution doesn't offend your personal sensibilities then it is okay? Seems that we should try a little bit harder than that to uphold the Constitution as written, IMO.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1642069' date='Jan 8 2009, 17.50']So as long as that which is added to the Constitution doesn't offend your personal sensibilities then it is okay? Seems that we should try a little bit harder than that to uphold the Constitution as written, IMO.[/quote]

Are you a strict constitutionalist? If not, you have no beef. If you are, then i presume you're all in favor of overturning roe v. wade and countless other cases that don't conform to a strict constitutionalist view.

[Lord Mord]

Edit: Forget it.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1642080' date='Jan 8 2009, 17.02']Are you a strict constitutionalist? If not, you have no beef. If you are, then i presume you're all in favor of overturning roe v. wade and countless other cases that don't conform to a strict constitutionalist view.[/quote]

Since I'm not a strict constitutionalists means I can't point out when strict constitutionalists are being hypocritical?

[Meili]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1641422' date='Jan 8 2009, 07.08']It is the last part that is the annoying bit. The fact that he continously uses legal harrasment to push a minority agenda gets to be an annoyance. He has no interest in actually trying to convince a majority of the people that his view point has merit, only intrested in getting the courts to let him have his way.[/quote]

Would it be better if he stormed the white house with protestors to push for policy change? The gays did that and look what it got them. The courts is where the battle needs to be fought and the courts are ultimitely responsible for removing god off the coin, off the pledge and out of government speeches.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ken,

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1642750' date='Jan 9 2009, 12.41']Since I'm not a strict constitutionalists means I can't point out when strict constitutionalists are being hypocritical?[/quote]

Does Obama say all the words necessary to take the office of President of the U.S.? If yes anything else he says (that isn't a qualification of the earlier oath) is irrlevent as far as the Constitution is concerned.

[Lord Mord]

Meili,

[quote name='Meili' post='1642942' date='Jan 9 2009, 12.04']Would it be better if he stormed the white house with protestors to push for policy change? The gays did that and look what it got them. The courts is where the battle needs to be fought and the courts are ultimitely responsible for removing god off the coin, off the pledge and out of government speeches.[/quote]


You don't understand. SCOTUS decisions nothwithstanding, God should only be removed from government when a majority of us decide to give up on him and be heathens.




===

I want to be clear on something. In itself, this is a piddling issue. However, I think it is important that we remove any overt reference to God from any official government act or property, in the same way that the rotunda at the United Nations building should not be wallpapered in the design of the United States flag.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Which is why Newdow et al are not trying to keep Obama from adding SHMG (or anything else) outside the oath itself. Have we come back to this again?

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1642956' date='Jan 9 2009, 14.11']Ken,



Does Obama say all the words necessary to take the office of President of the U.S.? If yes anything else he says (that isn't a qualification of the earlier oath) is irrlevent as far as the Constitution is concerned.[/quote]

Is the Chief Justice acting in an official Government Capacity when he directs the PE to say "So Help Me God"?

[Lord Mord]

Yngwie Malmsteefn,


[quote name='Yngwie Malmsteefn' post='1642967' date='Jan 9 2009, 12.16']Which is why Newdow et al are not trying to keep Obama from adding SHMG (or anything else) outside the oath itself. Have we come back to this again?[/quote]


Have I been very oblique? Or were you not addressing me?

I was not aware we had ever [i]left[/i] the subject. I was never protesting against what Newdow was doing, and rather the reverse.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ken,

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1643036' date='Jan 9 2009, 15.57']Is the Chief Justice acting in an official Government Capacity when he directs the PE to say "So Help Me God"?[/quote]

That's the question of the day, isn't it? Does the Chief Justice have the power to say a given President Elect isn't the President unless he says "SHMG?" I don't think so. Therefore, as long as Obama says the words required by the U.S. Constitution he's cool. The better question is whether the direction by the Chief Justice is endorsement as set out in Supreme Court Jurisprudence. If a Court ever reachs the issue Newdow is raising I'm not sure they can say no.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1643072' date='Jan 9 2009, 16.13']Ken,



That's the question of the day, isn't it? Does the Chief Justice have the power to say a given President Elect isn't the President unless he says "SHMG?" I don't think so. Therefore, as long as Obama says the words required by the U.S. Constitution he's cool. The better question is whether the direction by the Chief Justice is endorsement as set out in Supreme Court Jurisprudence. [b]If a Court ever reachs the issue Newdow is raising I'm not sure they can say no.[/b][/quote]


Not necessarily. O'Connor said in [i]Newdow[/i] that "Under God" in the pledge does not violate the Establishment clause because it is "ceremonial deism." The same logic could apply to SHMG.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1642750' date='Jan 9 2009, 12.41']Since I'm not a strict constitutionalists means I can't point out when strict constitutionalists are being hypocritical?[/quote]

Do you really see no difference between SHMG and the court using foreign law to interpret the US constitution? Obviously, strict constitutionalists are going to care about the latter and not give a hoot whether the president elect decides to swear his oath under god. This is not hypocritical because there is nothing hypocritical about it. The President Elect is protected under the 1st amendment. As for the Chief Justice, i don't believe having the President Elect repeat SHMG is an establihsment of religion. My evidenece? SHMG has been used in federal courtrooms since 1789. I think that is proof enough that our founders would not have objected to SHMG. Should SHMG be used? I don't know, but strict constitutionalists are certainly not hypocritical.


[url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-07-washington-oath_N.htm"]http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009...gton-oath_N.htm[/url]

[AndyP]

If PE want to say "So help me God" he should be free to do so. Also if the PE wishes to add nothing he should be free to do so and inform the CJ of his intent (which the CJ should out respect honor). Hell if the PE wants to dress in gold lame and fairy wings and say "so help me Satan", I say go for it. Damn it, its the new President's day and let him swear or "affirm" as he chooses.
He is taking the oath not the nation and not the government, just him. He is presenting himself to the nation and saying this the the man that you elected. If you don't like it and you voted for him well then maybe you voted for the wrong man.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1643156' date='Jan 9 2009, 16.10']Do you really see no difference between SHMG and the court using foreign law to interpret the US constitution? Obviously, strict constitutionalists are going to care about the latter and not give a hoot whether the president elect decides to swear his oath under god. This is not hypocritical because there is nothing hypocritical about it. The President Elect is protected under the 1st amendment. As for the Chief Justice, i don't believe having the President Elect repeat SHMG is an establihsment of religion. My evidenece? SHMG has been used in federal courtrooms since 1789. I think that is proof enough that our founders would not have objected to SHMG. Should SHMG be used? I don't know, but strict constitutionalists are certainly not hypocritical.[/quote]

You seem to be missing the issue. The issue isn't what Obama says or doesn't say. The issue is the Chief Justice haphazardly changing the wording of the Constitution because ... I'm not sure why. The oath is spelled out in the Constitution. Just follow the Constitution as written and everyone is happy. Start changing the wording of the Constitution and someone is going file a lawsuit.

If Obama want's to add SHMG at the end of it he can (and will, regardless of this lawsuit).

[AndyP]

Ken

My guess is that if the Chief Justice adds "so help me God" to the end it will be because the new President asks him to. The whole purpose of the Chief Justice leading him is so he won't forget the words. The CJ probably asks ahead of time about shmG to avoid any embarrassment.

[Lord Mord]

AndyP,


[quote name='AndyP' post='1643209' date='Jan 9 2009, 14.46']Ken

My guess is that if the Chief Justice adds "so help me God" to the end it will be because the new President asks him to. The whole purpose of the Chief Justice leading him is so he won't forget the words. The CJ probably asks ahead of time about shmG to avoid any embarrassment.[/quote]


This is a rationalization and a false abdication of responsibility.

The CJ should decline, and say, "I apologize, sir/madam, but my constitutional duties forbid me from prompting you to invoke God."

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

lordcaspen - I was not addressing you, but Scot.

I thought we had left the issue because I posted the text of the complaint where Newdow et al EXPLICITLY SAY THAT OBAMA CAN SAY IT IF HE WANTS TO. And also because Scot himself has more than once talked about the sought injunction being against Roberts, not Obama.

For Scot himself to come back and talk about how Obama's being targeted was... frustrating, even more than the other circles this debate has taken.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1643200' date='Jan 9 2009, 17.38']You seem to be missing the issue. The issue isn't what Obama says or doesn't say. The issue is the Chief Justice haphazardly changing the wording of the Constitution because ... I'm not sure why. The oath is spelled out in the Constitution. Just follow the Constitution as written and everyone is happy. Start changing the wording of the Constitution and someone is going file a lawsuit.

If Obama want's to add SHMG at the end of it he can (and will, regardless of this lawsuit).[/quote]

Read the second half of my post. It is all about the chief justice.