Rick Santorum: Separation Of Church And State A Communist Idea
[su_right_ad]On a conservative conference call, former and likely future presidential candidate Rick Santorum says the concept of separation of church and state is a communist one.
A listener on the call told Santorum that “a number of the things that the far left, a.k.a. the Democrat [sic] Party, and the president is pushing for and accomplishing actually accomplishes a number of the tenets of ‘The Communist Manifesto,’ including the amnesty, the elevation of pornography, homosexuality, gay marriage, voter fraud, open borders, mass self-importation of illegal immigrants and things of that nature.” The likely presidential candidate replied that “the words ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the U.S. Constitution, but it was in the constitution of the former Soviet Union. That’s where it very, very comfortably sat, not in ours.”
Of course, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among others, referred to the separation of church and state when explaining the amendment which they drafted.
[su_csky_ad]
tracey marie December 1st, 2014 at 4:02 pm
old frothy will be good comioc relief if he runs again. HJe will also put off lot’s of xtians
jasperjava December 1st, 2014 at 7:33 pm
The whole GOP field is a collection of clowns, some worse than others. Santorum is the type of clown who doesn’t make you laugh so much as give you the creeps. Think John Wayne Gacy.
tracey marie December 1st, 2014 at 8:02 pm
he is creepy and his wife is as well. All she wanted was to get married, her boyfriend said no, he had already raised a family. He even gave her an abortion since that was his job. Later, she had another to save her life
William December 1st, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Rick’s making progress. He’s usually obsessed with gay sex. It’s nice to see him develop other interests.
FrankenPC . December 1st, 2014 at 4:55 pm
Malodorous, perverted WUUUUURM!!!
DogsRgoodpeople December 1st, 2014 at 5:14 pm
Just mind boggling . Even more mind boggling is that they keep getting crazier . Ten years ago I thought voters would recognize the stupidity of such statements , turns out we’ve got a long long way to go.
tiredoftea December 1st, 2014 at 5:18 pm
They kinda do recognize the stupidity. He hasn’t been elected to anything lately.
Candide Thirtythree December 2nd, 2014 at 10:16 am
Does he even have a job? How does he support that fortyleven children he has?
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:31 pm
We haven’t hit bottom yet. Obama pulled us away from the edge of the Second Great Depression and the stock market has tripled, and of course people are giving the GOPTP the credit for it…
Suzanne McFly December 1st, 2014 at 5:19 pm
I would hate (actually love) to see his computer, I bet it is full of porn and we know his wife’s is. The loudest horns have the most to hide.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker December 1st, 2014 at 6:00 pm
I know right! We’ve seen this many times before.
Even Shakespeare knew this part of human nature when he wrote: “methinks the lady doth protest too much”.
And you have to admit, O’l Frothy has a hard-on for the gays….just sayin’.
Suzanne McFly December 1st, 2014 at 7:02 pm
I am hoping for the gay porn, many of these types end up with child porn.
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:29 pm
That would be sick–but sadly not surprising. I get those vibes from Pat Robertson.
Suzanne McFly December 1st, 2014 at 7:50 pm
I do too, he seems like a sick little old man
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:29 pm
He thinks about gay male sex more than any gay men I’ve ever known.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 1st, 2014 at 11:09 pm
He’d probably just call it “research”
neworleans878 December 1st, 2014 at 5:43 pm
From the above quote: “Gay pornography is the reason people chose the gay lifestyle…”
So there were no gays before pornography? Wow, the Rickster’s teaching me all sorts of things today!
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:27 pm
I remember learning about an all gay battalion that fought in the Revolutionary War.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker December 1st, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Not only that contrived bullshit, but there are people who believe him, follow him and think the same way.
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:27 pm
Makes me wonder if he finally found a boyfriend. (OOH–did I say that outloud?)
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:22 pm
Sounds like someone has naughty dreams about Santorum.
Candide Thirtythree December 2nd, 2014 at 10:13 am
Tell us yours
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:38 pm
doesn’t have dreams – just lives in his own fabricated nightmare.
M D Reese December 2nd, 2014 at 3:03 pm
Not me–He’s so not my type, on so many levels.
neworleans878 December 1st, 2014 at 4:10 pm
Our founding fathers were commies? Wow. Never knew.
Hirightnow December 1st, 2014 at 4:35 pm
They held that ALL landowners were equal…
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:26 pm
All white male landowners.
Larry Schmitt December 1st, 2014 at 8:06 pm
That’s redundant, since those are the only ones allowed to own land.
M D Reese December 2nd, 2014 at 3:27 pm
Oops–I forgot for a moment…
tiredoftea December 1st, 2014 at 5:18 pm
Well, christian commies.
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:25 pm
It was bound to happen–Jesus was a socialist, and or course Moses wrote the Constitution…
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:21 pm
No they were not “commies” which is why they did not put “separation of church and state” in the United States Constitution.
Foundryman December 1st, 2014 at 4:27 pm
Right wing fanaticism is like an infection, it keeps growing inside the mind until there is nothing left, Santorum proves this with every passing day…
Now come on righties, do you agree that the laws of the USA should be controlled and approved by someones religious leaders, that there should be no separation?
Who’s the anti American unpatriotic douche bag now?
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:24 pm
And which sect/cult will be chosen as the one true cult? Mormons? Catholics? Baptists? (and if so, which FLAVOR of Baptists?) Church of God/Christ/the Lord etc etc and so on…
Candide Thirtythree December 2nd, 2014 at 10:12 am
Pentecostals, the whole sneakers with a long denim skirt look would be mandatory! Yikes!
M D Reese December 2nd, 2014 at 2:25 pm
They’d have to wrestle me into it, and a few of them would lose the use of a couple of body parts if they tried…
Candide Thirtythree December 4th, 2014 at 4:29 am
hahahaha I hear ya!
Margie Bateman Osgood December 1st, 2014 at 11:08 pm
Didn’t we leave England to get away from all that merriment?
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:36 pm
not really- “we” were expelled from england for being a lunatic religious fringe who have yet to lose their puritan influence on the usa.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 2nd, 2014 at 1:40 pm
And yet the first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, thereby pretty much telling us not to do what we left back in merry olde.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 5:54 pm
count – 1620 > 1776ish – that’s enough years for even Tom and George and Ben to realize the puritan screwballs were out of their f’n minds – the arrivers and the founders had little to do with each other.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 3rd, 2014 at 10:53 am
“Recognizing the unique and intimate nature of religion, the Founding Fathers wisely put religion on a different footing from other forms of speech and observance – mandating strict separation of religion and government to ensure religious freedom for all individuals and faiths. Largely because of the First Amendment’s prohibition against government regulation or endorsement of religion, diverse faiths have flourished and thrived in America since the founding of the republic.”
http://www.adl.org/civil-rights/religious-freedom/c/primer-on-the-first-amendment.html
Hirightnow December 1st, 2014 at 4:34 pm
“Separation Of Church And State A Communist Idea”
Whereas Treason against one’s country has always been a capital crime, in almost any nation…
Mike December 1st, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Deport him.
Larry Schmitt December 1st, 2014 at 4:48 pm
Who would take him? He doesn’t have any marketable skills.
tiredoftea December 1st, 2014 at 5:16 pm
Can’t even send him to Canada!
Larry Schmitt December 1st, 2014 at 6:10 pm
They sent us Cruz, they won’t take this guy.
tiredoftea December 1st, 2014 at 6:26 pm
Sneaky, damned Canadians!
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:22 pm
They are messing with us from within…
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:21 pm
They won’t even take the Bieb back!
tiredoftea December 1st, 2014 at 7:26 pm
Can’t say as I blame them, there! As long as they keep Don Cherry on their side of the border, we won’t be too bad off!
M D Reese December 2nd, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Wow–he looks like a real pip…
tiredoftea December 2nd, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Don is special! He’s the hockey equivalent of the WWE announcers.
M D Reese December 3rd, 2014 at 6:17 pm
Wow, now that is really saying something..
Roctuna December 1st, 2014 at 9:15 pm
Sweatervest model and negative role model?
Tommy6860 December 1st, 2014 at 4:46 pm
So in essence, he is calling the ideas of what our founding fathers made as the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment. Bravo Sanatorium, to your continued idiotic rantings in McCarthyism.
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:20 pm
He is correct; you are not. Read the Constitution, not what people tell you it says.
Tommy6860 December 2nd, 2014 at 3:38 am
LMAO!, this a from an expert of the Constitution, who says there are 29 amendments to it O.o
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 7:04 pm
Amazing that you could be so hysterically amused by a typographical error.
Unfortunately (for you) at the end of the laugh “separation of church and state” is still not a part of the US Constitution.
R.J. Carter December 1st, 2014 at 5:09 pm
Jefferson referred to it as a wall of protection against government interference (q.v. letter to the Ursuline Sisters of New Orleans post Louisiana Purchase; 1st inaugural address).
arc99 December 1st, 2014 at 5:51 pm
he also explicitly referred to it as
“thus building a wall of separation between Church & State” in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
We have known for some time that Jefferson was a slaveowner and a de facto rapist, taking as a mistress a woman who had no legal right to refuse.
But he was a commie too? Who knew
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:21 pm
Well hell, Jesus was a socialist…
Dwendt44 December 2nd, 2014 at 12:39 am
Not only that but jesus practiced ‘communalism’ which was one of the basis for Communism.
M D Reese December 2nd, 2014 at 2:58 pm
Exactly. Our military and highway system are great examples of communalism.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:34 pm
nah, just a kind man with ideas so far beyond his time they had to hang him out to dry.
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:18 pm
But the letter was never included in the US Constitution, therefore, to this day it still lacks constitutionality. It is just a letter.
Jefferson did not draft the Constitution alone and he never signed it. In addition if you read Article V of the US Constitution you will find that a letter from Jefferson nor anyone else is sufficient to amend the Constitution.
Congress must pass a constitutional amendment or two thirds of the states may apply for and amendment and three fourths of the states must ratify it before the Constitution can be amended.This process cannot be expedited by court recognition of a letter.
Obewon December 1st, 2014 at 11:27 pm
“Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists” explains to zealots why the U.S. Constitution prohibits biblical law, a state sponsored religion and that the USA was in no way founded as a Christian Nation: The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was “not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” (see the image on the right http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html ). This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims– they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington, Ratified by the Founders Congress and signed under the presidency of John Adams 2nd POTUS!
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:30 pm
Notwithstanding it is not part of the US Constitution; period.
Obewon December 1st, 2014 at 11:33 pm
Public schools can’t teach creationism/ID as science for the same reason that it’s illegal to recite “The lords prayer in public schools”-without allowing all other religions a Secular prayer too!
Happy bible thumping.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 8:09 pm
Actually, prohibiting the free exercise of religion is a violation of the US Constitution; but, there is no constitutional requirement for the government to prevent anyone from being exposed to things that may be construed as religious.
Obewon December 2nd, 2014 at 8:25 pm
Nobody is stopping you from praying to the smell of Santorum as free exercise of religion.
Dwendt44 December 2nd, 2014 at 12:38 am
But it is the law of the land.
The Founding Fathers cite ‘Separation of Church and State’ as the principle ensconced in the First Amendment.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 7:35 pm
The Constitution is the law of the land. The so called “founding fathers” only drafted the Constitution; it had to be ratified by the states; and any changes subsequent to ratification must be made in accordance with Article V of the Constitution.
The US Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”; nothing further on any relationship between church and state.
“…separation of church and state…” cannot be intelligently inferred from the first amendment, which is why the court never applied that notion until after the introduction of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists; which was unconstitutional because the letter was not and is not tantamount to law which is the only source that can constitutionally inform a court decision.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:33 pm
you’ve gone over the edge idiot – it’s time to shut up.
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:08 pm
Yes but the reference was made after the Constitution was signed and the Constitution was never amended to reflect the sentiment despite the fact there have been 29 amendments to the Constitution.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:31 pm
blah blah – you have said essentially nothing throughout this long list of clever puns.
Khary A December 1st, 2014 at 5:56 pm
Hey Rick a bit of advice. “The less one is apt to make declarative statements, the less one looks foolish in retrospect.”
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:20 pm
That goes hand in hand with the one about keeping your mouth shut and letting people think that you’re a fool rather than opening it and removing all doubt. I don’t remember who to credit for it, but that’s the gist.
jasperjava December 1st, 2014 at 7:27 pm
I think Lincoln said that.
Roctuna December 1st, 2014 at 9:13 pm
I thought it was Mark Twain but true whoever said it.
M D Reese December 2nd, 2014 at 3:28 pm
That sounds familiar.
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:06 pm
I do not know whether it appeared in the communist constitution but I can say unequivocally that it does not appear in the United States Constitution. So he need not worry about looking foolish about saying so.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:30 pm
waddaya mean you don’t know????? when you proselytize like a person of wisdom you had better know the stuff to which you refer. It’s always amusing – or is it revolting – to read some commentaries by the believing ignorant.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:28 pm
can’t tell that to a fool.
Obewon December 1st, 2014 at 5:58 pm
Fascist Santorum / Putin until 2016~
Xenophobes bested conservative SCOTUS equality requirements for all women’s right to choose for 10 weeks, equal marriage for all adults, mandating any school & public prayer be secular and preventing science teachers from claiming an impossible 6,000 year old Earth and universe age in public schools.
thinkingwomanmillstone December 1st, 2014 at 6:55 pm
Santorum aka Sweatervest Man never met a conservative misstatement he hasn’t embraced.
New Old Gnu December 1st, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Gotta LOVE when these guys like Ichabod find themselves NEEDING to or HAVING TO Agree Wtih and Acquiesce to some of the Total Lunacy that “Their Base” Believes and Blathers, Daily PRECISELY Because those Like HIM have “Fed” That Base Non-sensical “Red Meat”, since “O” Came along …. HILARIOUS !! : )
M D Reese December 1st, 2014 at 7:17 pm
He hasn’t read much history, has he. I wonder if he went to school in Texas–they’re now teaching that Moses wrote the Constitution.
William December 1st, 2014 at 7:24 pm
Yeah Ricky doesn’t really have a good grasp of the Constitution.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:27 pm
only the first ten lines about images and food and genocidal activity against innocent communes waiting for the hebrews to free them.
jasperjava December 1st, 2014 at 7:25 pm
I was a political science major. I read the Communist Manifesto. I don’t remember anything in it about “amnesty, the elevation of pornography, homosexuality, gay marriage, voter fraud, open borders, mass self-importation of illegal immigrants and things of that nature.”
Could it be that Ricky Frothy is (gasp) lying, or an ignorant shmuck who pulls crap out of his ass and smears it all over himself?
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:25 pm
ignorant blind uniformed ego maniacal folks like santorum see no evil in their manipulation of the word when the word is soooooo godly. Scary people you have there!
Nicholas Russell Harris December 9th, 2014 at 10:01 am
I am going to hazard a guess and say. . .both?
Jones December 1st, 2014 at 8:13 pm
Saint Ron…
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:01 pm
Yes but rhetoric is not law. The exclusive power to make law is vested in congress by the Constitution so that regardless of what the court thinks, it is not law until congress says so. Congress has never seen fit, in over two centuries, to amend the Constitution to reflect separation of church and state; therefore it is not law.
Jones December 1st, 2014 at 11:18 pm
1st Amendant. Constitutional.
Jones December 1st, 2014 at 11:24 pm
Full declaration by Reagan:
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:32 pm
Presidential declarations do not amend the US Constitution; per Article V of said Constitution.
Jones December 1st, 2014 at 11:57 pm
There is nothing in the constitution declaring the joining of church and state. The 1st amendment may not use the exact language you seem to demand, but it does outlaw the establishment of a religion by the state.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 7:45 pm
It says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”. “Congress shall make no law…”.
Where is the law enacted by congress that violates this prohibition? No law; no violation.
Jones December 2nd, 2014 at 7:49 pm
Right, no establishment of state religion…guaranteed by constitutional amendment.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:23 pm
if your thinking gets any narrower you will squish your head between the pillars of knowledge.
Jones December 1st, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Founding fathers versus RWNJs.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker December 1st, 2014 at 8:39 pm
American conservatives are working toward creating a theocracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY
Bunya December 1st, 2014 at 9:16 pm
Yeah, that separation of church and state thingy is a real commie idea. Just think how much better off we’d be it if this were a theocratically controlled government – like Iran, for instance. Run with that brilliant line of thought, Ricky. Let me know how you fare with the woman vote in the next election. I’m sure there’ll be a huge stampede of women trampling each other trying to get to the poles before they close to vote for you.
burqa December 1st, 2014 at 10:48 pm
Just a guess, but you mean “polls”, don’t you?
Bunya December 2nd, 2014 at 9:56 am
Fixed. Thanks for noticing.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 7th, 2014 at 1:44 pm
Yeah but the women voting for Ricky may indeed be stampeding to the “poles”. just saying……
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 10:08 pm
Alan this country is governed by the rule of law as founded in the United States Constitution.
Nothing the delegates to the constitutional convention, or the signers of the Constitution, said, subsequent to the signing of the Constitution, has any bearing on the Constitution except as provided in Article V of the Constitution.
Over two centuries after Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, wherein he tries to assure them of their first amendment protections with a metaphor about a wall of separation between church and state, no congress has seen fit to amend the Constitution to reflect that sentiment.
Therefore, there is no constitutional mandate for an absolute separation between religion and government.
The Constitution vests all legislative power in the congress, therefore no court opinion or ruling is tantamount to law nor is it binding as law except as it informs lower courts.
Rick Santorum is in fact the first politician with the courage to speak the truth.
If he goes so far as to assert the unconstitutionality of the court’s imposition of this unconstitutional standard, he will be on the way to also declaring the unconstitutionality of any court ruling intended to amend, repeal or otherwise invalidate any act of congress; including DOMA.
Yes Alan, you and your lgbt friends should fear Santorum because he has the courage to begin the process of stopping judicial tyranny.
Carla Akins December 1st, 2014 at 10:16 pm
Jesus H Christ, please tell me this is sarcasm.
Obewon December 1st, 2014 at 10:50 pm
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”-Article III, Section I proves Constitutional illiteracy is the best @Paundit456 features.
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 10:57 pm
And the Supreme Court is supreme within the judicial branch of government; not among the three branches of government.
Obewon December 1st, 2014 at 11:10 pm
Lol. Each co-equal government branch provides ‘checks and balances’ to the other branch via “Marbury v. Madison” As Burqa notes above. The US Constitution provides ‘judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court’-via “Stare decisis to stand by things decided.” is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cited stare decisis since the Magna Carta-June 15, 1215 that is the legal foundation of our U.S. Constitutionally defined legal system of precedents.
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:38 pm
Please cite the “co-equal branches of government” provision in the US Constitution.
Stare decisis is a device created by the court. It is not founded in the US Constitution not is it binding on subsequent courts as demonstrated when it overturned Bowers v Hardwick; among others.
Obewon December 1st, 2014 at 11:46 pm
You clearly haven’t read or comprehended the entire Constitution. I suggest you begin here. http://www.usconstitution.cc/
Nicholas Russell Harris December 2nd, 2014 at 7:33 am
Good on you Obewon for schooling him in facts. . .I noticed he hasn’t responded. . .his RWNJ head must’ve exploded.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:21 pm
always fun when you just use knowledge to dump them in the alley. Good on you Obe.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 8:01 pm
I did not ask for your interpretation, speculation or conclusions; I asked you to cite in the US Constitution the portion that states the three branches of government are co-equal; not even the two houses of congress are co-equal. Only the house can impeach and only the senate can conduct trials and confirm appointments and judges.
The president is “Commander in Chief” but only congress can declare and fund a war; and the judiciary can do none of those things.
Perhaps you misapprehend the meaning of co-equal.
Obewon December 2nd, 2014 at 8:39 pm
You were given a simple task to comprehend about 4 pages ratified in 1789 that debunk your constitutional illiteracy, and your cited “29 Amendment” claims. Study up there are 27 ratified amendments including the 10 Bill of rights.
Pundit456 December 3rd, 2014 at 6:17 am
Beyond a typographical error, you have yet to cite any part of the Constitution that supports any of your assertions.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 3rd, 2014 at 10:44 am
I hope this suffices:
http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe!openform&nav=menu1&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/401
Pundit456 December 7th, 2014 at 11:34 am
I am not sure whether or not you are implying that the fjc is a part of the Constitution. However, the fjc has no constitutional base to support its co-equal assertion, In fact, numerous constitutional provisions contradict that notion.
If you researched the records of the constitutional convention you would find that it entertained the notion of the court as a part of the legislative process and dismissed the idea due to the impropriety of the court later hearing cases challenging laws it was instrumental in implementing.
The convention opted instead for the presidential veto and the ability for congress to override the veto as a check and balance for the legislative process.
Congress is ostensibly the voice of the people and is therefore the preeminent branch of government of the people, by the people and for the people. There is no co-equality nor was there ever intended to be.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 7th, 2014 at 1:42 pm
I am not implying anything except that this was a simple explanation that I was sure even you could understand.
Try this one: http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government
Pundit456 December 7th, 2014 at 8:12 pm
If you read Article V of the US Constitution you will see that it clearly outlines the procedure for amending the US Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the branches of government are “co-equal”; nor has congress or the states seen fit to amend the Constitution to establish a “co-equal paradigm.
The court was deliberately placed beyond the reach of the people and granted it lifetime tenure so that it would not be influenced by anything other than the law.
The reason that government is so dysfunctional is because too many people think what others tell them to think rather than thinking for themselves.
The explanation on the page you cite, cites no constitutional basis for its assertions. That is because it is not founded on the US Constitution.
“More perfect union” was a reference to unification of the states, not conflation of the branches of government. The founders identified the powers deemed necessary to successfully govern and separated those powers; each to perform a unique and integral function of government.
By providing these various links, you have acknowledged that “co-equality” is not expressed or implied in the US Constitution; which is what I have said all along.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 10th, 2014 at 3:16 am
Well, apparently you are the only one that believes the three branches are not Co-Equal, they each have different purposes so they can balance each other out. What the Legislative and Executive branch giveth, the Judicial can taketh away………
Pundit456 December 10th, 2014 at 9:19 am
On the one hand you assert that this is a nation of laws but where there is no law to support your view you defer to people’s beliefs.
There is no need to rely on beliefs when the Constitution speaks for itself; and it does not express or imply co-equality of the branches of government so that such an inference is not supported by the US Constitution.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 17th, 2014 at 10:38 am
And it also doesn’t say they are not, so your belief is not supported by the Constitution either, ’nuff said.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 3rd, 2014 at 10:31 am
I think you misapprehend the meaning of co-equal. They are Co-Equal in the respect that each branch has a major function that checks the other two branches. They are very co-equal in that respect. No one branch has more power than the other, however together, in agreement, they can be formidable. They each have an equal amount of power and they each have an equally important role to play.
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:47 pm
Just out of curiosity, did he tell you that it was sarcasm, yet?
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:19 pm
nope this character seems very content in his/her rightness albeit a rather narrow view based on very little extensive research – it’s fascinating how one can attribute their belief system to a narrow narrow band and think their words resonate with wisdom rather than dom alone.
burqa December 1st, 2014 at 10:47 pm
While the phrase “wall of separation” does not appear in the Constitution, the notion is implied. There is to be no official national religion, and by that it is likewise reasonable to conclude there should be no favoritism shown to a particular faith or sect.
Early on there were sects that states identified as official, and abuses of those who were not members were so bad that the practice was abandoned after a few years.
You are wrong about the opinions of the courts.
Familiarize yourself with Marbury v. Madison.
Just as there are limits to all our freedoms, there are likewise limits in the form of checks and balances in the powers of each of the 3 branches of government. The Supreme Court may strike down a law passed by Congress as being unconstitutional. This is a check on the legislative power given to Congress.
They do not have unchecked legislative power.
Your view was not held by the majority of our Founding Fathers.
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:45 pm
The country was not intended to be ruled by implication. The Constitution was written so as not to rely on anyone’s memory, impressions or analysis to determine its import. The Constitution contains no provision for implication to e tantamount to law nor binding as such.
Jones December 2nd, 2014 at 1:18 am
The constitution has no provision for the ownership of ammunition. We can’t take the right to bear arms as an “implication” since it doesn’t appear verbatim.
The constitution can be interpreted in many ways… in our system of government we do depend on the courts for analysis and interpretation.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 7:21 pm
Which of course is ridiculous inasmuch as the reason for the Declaration of Independence was to escape being governed by people beyond the reach of the people. Congress (or as you call it, politicians) is the only branch of government empowered by the Constitution to make law. The court is constitutionally constrained by those laws; it has no authority to modify any law to facilitate adjudication or for any other reason.
The second amendment is not the subject of this thread nor is it germane to a discussion on the validity of Rick Santorum’s assertion.
The US Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” so that unless and until congress makes a law respecting an establishment of religion there is no violation of this proscription.
Jones December 2nd, 2014 at 8:00 pm
The court can strike down laws deemed unconstitutional.
The second amendment does not have the words “right to ammo”. so ammo can be banned…by your logic.
Pundit436 “so that unless and until congress makes a law respecting an establishment of religion there is no violation of this proscription.”
No one implied that congress had violated the first amendment, Santorum and some other RWVJs would like to.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 8:29 pm
The court has the power to strike down state laws which are antithetical to the Constitution or federal laws that flow therefrom.
However, all legislative power is vested in congress by the constitution meaning that now other branch has the constitutional authority to amend, repeal or invalidate federal legislation because to do so would be tantamount to legislating which only congress is empowered to do.
Jones December 2nd, 2014 at 8:40 pm
The court makes rulings that invalidate laws all the time.
If congress disagrees their only recourse is to make an amendment to the constitution.
Pundit456 December 3rd, 2014 at 6:14 am
Where is that written in the Constitution; or anywhere?
Jones December 3rd, 2014 at 6:52 am
How old are you?
Jones December 2nd, 2014 at 9:19 pm
The court almost struck down the Health Care Act, …federal legislation. May still do so next year. Are you new to this country?
Pundit456 December 3rd, 2014 at 6:08 am
As I said the court is corrupt; wielding power not founded in the Constitution; because we have for some time been encumbered with a dysfunctional congress.
The courts make law while congress campaigns and bickers. The price of juvenile minded voting.
A functional congress could and would impeach the justices for their bad behavior; but since most of congress is preoccupied with its own job security, the court is essentially omnipotent; corrupt, not correct.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 3rd, 2014 at 10:24 am
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” If we start making Christian based laws, then you are violating the rights of everyone who is not a Christian by forcing them to practice Christianity.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 1st, 2014 at 11:04 pm
What is more unconstitutional than to impose laws based in Christianity or any other religion for that matter? I have said it before and I will say it again, this county is made up of many religions, no religions, and many walks of life. What is fair for one has to be fair for all. I am a Christian, but I will be damned if I will follow Christian law in any other venue except my personal life and my church. My government has no right to push their loose interpretation or their chosen tenets on me. I learn all I need to know from my Pastor. And no damned government official is going to choose that for me.
There, off my loving, christian soapbox and off to find a place to live off the grid if needed, LOL
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:42 pm
I certainly did not intend to upset you. I merely stated a fact; separation of church and state does not appear in the Constitution therefore and constitutional violation based on that proscription is it self unconstitutional.
The Constitution can be amended if the people so choose; thus far they have not.
arc99 December 1st, 2014 at 11:48 pm
There is no need to amend the Constitution to prevent Congress from according Christian beliefs a protected place in the law accorded to no other belief system.
The establishment clause works just fine.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 7:52 pm
Really? Let’s see. It says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”.
As you can see it is a violation of the Constitution for congress to make any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion; so its protected place is actually in the Constitution.
As for the “establishment clause” as you put it, unless and until congress “makes a law” respecting an establishment of religion there is no violation of this precept of the US Constitution.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 2nd, 2014 at 12:37 am
And it also does not state that laws may be based on religion, that is a two way street. If the government wants laws based on religion, then the Constitution can be amended if the people so choose; thus far they have not. I do believe that America started with a bunch of Pilgrims escaping a country that was controlled by the Catholic Church and desired to get away from said control. Apparently people just don’t study history anymore and realize that our country was not founded on Christianity, it is merely one of the many religions that have the privilege and the right to be practiced in this country.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 7:43 pm
Hypotheticals are great for passing the time; but the US Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
If you can cite a law enacted by congress that violates this proscription, you have a case; otherwise it is a debate without constitutional foundation.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 3rd, 2014 at 10:19 am
What I am trying to get at here is that more and more conservatives are proposing laws and Ideas for laws because of the bible. Why do you think so many conservatives were against gay marriage? The bible. Abortion? Against God’s laws. And on and on. If Christian Fundamentalists, the ones who say that our country was founded on Christianity, not only don’t know their history (Read the Treaty of Tripoli) but also seem to think it is the national religion. I am a Christian myself. Do I want God’s laws to rule for everyone outside of my personal life, in our government? Well that is their personal choice and as far as our government, hell no,but the individuals in it are free to believe as they wish as long as I am not required to live by their misguided interpretation of the Bible.
OldLefty December 2nd, 2014 at 8:46 pm
separation of church and state CLEARLY appears in the Constitution.
Pundit456 December 3rd, 2014 at 6:09 am
Prove it.
OldLefty December 3rd, 2014 at 6:33 am
Read the first amendment.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 8:11 pm
I cannot say without knowing exactly to what “laws” you refer.
Jones December 1st, 2014 at 11:46 pm
Protecting constitutional rights is “judicial tyranny” to RWNJs.
BreitbartLovesEwe December 2nd, 2014 at 5:57 pm
The cries about “judicial activism” have always been an utter sham and have never designated anything more complex than how Republicans feel about particular ruling.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 8:04 pm
Please show me in the US Constitution or the Judiciary Act where the court is charged or empowered to protect constitutional rights.
Jones December 2nd, 2014 at 8:25 pm
In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. Supreme court rulings can only be overturned by constitutional amendment.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 8:39 pm
Citation?
Jones December 2nd, 2014 at 9:02 pm
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm
OldLefty December 2nd, 2014 at 8:45 pm
“The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
Else, they should only handle land and property disputes.
OldLefty December 2nd, 2014 at 8:26 pm
Guess what?
That’s EXACTLY what WE say about the likes of Rick Santorum who wants only HIS kind of judicial tyranny.
And by the way, the Court does rule on Constitutionality, especially in protecting against the tyanny of the majority.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 8:41 pm
Of course it does; because as Sir John Dalberg-Acton said, Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
OldLefty December 2nd, 2014 at 8:43 pm
That’s why we fear people like Santorum and the rest our “moral betters” of the right.
Pundit456 December 3rd, 2014 at 6:13 am
How comfortable you seem to be stereotyping others based on preconceptions.
People attack the person when they can’t refute their message.
OldLefty December 3rd, 2014 at 6:32 am
Thou dost project too much, Methinks.
1) Isn’t that EXACTLY what YOU are doing?
2) That is EXACTLY the sole basis of Rick Santorum’s rhetoric.
3) Rich Santorum has been refuted six ways from Sunday, (which is why he had an approval rating in the low 20’s in Pa).
Do you have something specific?
burqa December 1st, 2014 at 10:34 pm
Ok, so Santorum shows he doesn’t know history.
Is this really news?
Notions of religious freedom and the separation of church and state go back to Jefferson, Madison, Pendleton and a couple others who wrote the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.
There were efforts by some to insert religious language in the preamble when the statute was hammered out here in Fredericksburg, Va., just down the street from where I type.
In 1:67 of his Autobiography in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, editor Andrew Lipscomb quotes Jefferson on the proposal:
“The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”
Pundit456 December 1st, 2014 at 11:03 pm
Please copy and paste the section of the Constitution that contains the phrase “separation of church and state”
Kim Serrahn December 2nd, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t the wording translate into a separation? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 6:45 pm
I will not presume to correct you; particularly since people usually say that when they feel certain they are not wrong.
Notwithstanding, there is no “translation” necessary. One need only read what is written. The first five words state the purpose of the amendment,
“Congress shall make no law…”. Unless and until you can cite a law enacted by congress “…
respecting an establishment of religion” there is no constitutional violation.
As you can see separation of church and state is not stated, implied or suggested;nor is there anything in the Constitution to support that inference.
Kim Serrahn December 3rd, 2014 at 10:15 am
So in this sense there really isn’t a separation of church and state and because of that church’s can’t be told they may be in violation of a law and the state really works hand in glove with the church. And because of that one little word not being in the text, what ever the Church wants the state must do. I’m just trying to wrap my head around this.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:27 pm
the important phrase here is, “dickhead”
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 6:29 pm
I imagine that is rather important to you; but your obsessions are of no interest to me.
Larry Schmitt December 2nd, 2014 at 5:32 am
There’s an annual competition going on now, the Funniest Celebrity in Washington. It’s a charity fundraiser. Any of these republicans could present this crap that they expect us to take seriously with a straight face, and they would get more laughs than someone who is intentionally trying to be funny.
Nicholas Russell Harris December 2nd, 2014 at 7:27 am
Idiot has obviously never read the Communist Manifesto. It is one of my favorite books. . .and I believe he hasn’t even gone as far to skim the preface of it. . .
rg9rts December 2nd, 2014 at 7:57 am
Can you believe that this moron wanted his finger on the trigger…he resembles his name more every day
Par4thecourse December 2nd, 2014 at 11:01 am
This mentally deficient imbecile never had an idea.. certainly his donor should of dribbled down the leg.
mrbigstuff December 2nd, 2014 at 11:51 am
Coming from one of the leaders of American Isis.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 1:11 pm
I thought the commie boogeyman was replaced after the dominoes forgot to fall by the wonders of democracy which never arrived and then suffered the pangs of socialism which never really arrived and now there is fear, that lovely emotion cultivated to its highest by l’il bush and subsequently maintained as the worlds true objective – be afraid and we will keep you covered.
alpacadaddy December 2nd, 2014 at 2:34 pm
Right-wing Rick Sanitorium had an idea once… but it died of loneliness!
BreitbartLovesEwe December 2nd, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Rick Santorum… I actually think he’s a mixed bag. Certainly his comments around gender liberation issues have been hateful and benighted; I don’t mean to give him a pass on that. On the other hand, Santorum actually has given voice to some genuinely populist ideas.
I see the vile things he’s said as a manifestation of his ignorance, confusion, and generally poor role models in life. I think he doesn’t have a “bad heart.” Among all the Republican candidates he’s the one I’d most be interested in talking with.
Pundit456 December 2nd, 2014 at 6:46 pm
Prove it.
John_St_John December 7th, 2014 at 7:08 pm
And look who is the latest Johnny Come Lately to the communist hysteria, it is the hipster prickster Rickster Santorum. He who fantasizes about men’s shaven scrotum’s and bare back rides in the park, behind the bushes, inside the outhouse, down by the lake.