It is my humble opinion only, as I am not a constitutional scholar, that when President Obama reached out the church leaders to illicit their congregations to support his health bill, he really crossed the line and violated the oath of office when he swore to defend and uphold the constitution of the united states, which includes honoring "Separation of Church and State". Had a conservative reached out in such a way, they would have been crucified, and Obama walks with out a whimper from anyone sworn to defend and uphold the constitution! It is just wrong, it is always wrong and always will be. He should be impeached and I don't understand why he has not been called on this.
What President Obama did violates the 1st amendment where as it applies to the "Separation of Church and State. It is clear and solid, and means nothing to the President who took an oath to "protect the Constitution of the United States". Why, please tell me why he is exempt from the very oath he took, and why he is not impeached for violating the very oath he took, when he was sworn in as President of these Untied States, which he is trying so desperately to "change" into a Socialist Country or State?
In Everson v Board (330 US 1 [1947]), the Court put the final touch on the incorporation of religious liberty as applies to the states, though in a roundabout way. Arch Everson brought a suit against the Ewing, New Jersey schools for authorizing payments to parents of students attending parochial schools for use of the public bus system to transport the student to school. Everson contended that such payments to parents of parochial school students unconstitutionally funded religion with public funds. The law in question did prohibit the disbursement of funds to any parent who sent their child to a private school that was run for-profit.The Court disagreed, in a close 5-4 vote, with Everson. In doing so, however, it wrote some powerful statements concerning the 1st Amendment:
The last sentences of what the court wrote that are specific in what I have been trying to get across relative to the Separation between Church and State of the statements concerning the 1st Amendment
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."
For those who fail to understand that I offer the above as someone who is not a scholar of the constitution, but only interested in making a point.
I am definitely not a constitutional scholar, it is not my opinion, but the opinion of the Supreme Court that I quote, I only draw attention to the opinion as written. and according to the Supreme Court, not me, it was written as follows: "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."
Now this does not mean I agree or disagree, I am only quoting what was written by the judges of the Supreme Court, in 1947, in Evrson V Board (330 US 1 [1947]). By asking church leaders to ask their congregations to support a specific bill, is in my humble opinion, in violation of what was written by the court judges, not me, so if you have a beef, please take it up with the Supreme Court and not me.
If I am not interpreting the decisions of the Supreme Court Judges, than remember, it is my humble opinion, not by any means the law or the facts, with the exception of it is the facts as I see them. If you disagree, so be it. I just do not feel that the President nor any office of the federal government should dictate to any church or religion, what they should or should not support relative to his bills. Thanks for your input, and I respect your views and thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment