Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

I notice that nobody wants to try and answer the question I asked about the church in Chicago.

The last time I looked the constitution vested in congress the right to declare war.

The c of c is just another public servant, fully subject to the laws of the land. Nixon tried to say otherwise, and he was quickly shot down.

Advocate wrote:

The last time I looked the constitution vested in congress the right to declare war.

The c of c is just another public servant, fully subject to the laws of the land. Nixon tried to say otherwise, and he was quickly shot down.

You are absolutely correct,it is Congress that has the right to DECLARE war.

But,that is where their responsibility and authority end.
Once Congress declares war,it is the President,as C in C,that makes the decisions about everything else regarding the war and our military.
The Congress has no Constitutional mandate to second guess the CinC,or to overrule his decisions.

And the Judiciary has no role in the process at all.
They are kept totally out of the process,including concerning national security decisions during wartime.

Joe (and others on the left,
If there is a constitutional basis for "separation of church and state",then why do both houses of Congress have their own official chaplains?
Doesnt that violate the separation?

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov. (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Why does the military also have Chaplains?
In both cases you have the govt promoting AND sponsoring religion.

I actually asked my Congressperson, Heather Wilson, who is a graduate of the Air Force Academy about this. (It was a major debate subject on other forum I visit now and then.) She said they had looked into it and found much ado about nothing. Most of the incidents had been misrepresentated and what few staffers overstepped the line have been reined in. There is absolutely zero policy to emphasize, support, encourage, or feature Christinaity or any other religion at the Air Force Academy.

a. Senior faculty and staff members, in efforts that may have been wellintentioned,
have made public expressions of faith that some faculty, staff and cadets
believed to be inappropriately influential or coercive. As a result of this, some military
and civilian faculty expressed concern about the impact of religious affiliation on their
personal career advancement. Some cadets expressed objections to what they perceived
to be mandatory prayers at official functions and in sports locker rooms. Additionally,
some faculty members and coaches consider it their duty to profess their faith and discuss
this issue in their classrooms in furtherance of developing cadets' spirituality.
These incidents reflect the need for guidance and training regarding proper
conduct and established parameters.

Foxfyre wrote:

I actually asked my Congressperson, Heather Wilson, who is a graduate of the Air Force Academy about this. (It was a major debate subject on other forum I visit now and then.) She said they had looked into it and found much ado about nothing. Most of the incidents had been misrepresentated and what few staffers overstepped the line have been reined in. There is absolutely zero policy to emphasize, support, encourage, or feature Christinaity or any other religion at the Air Force Academy.

Here is just one short excerpt from the official report of the task force which investigated the issue.

Quote:

a. Senior faculty and staff members, in efforts that may have been wellintentioned,
have made public expressions of faith that some faculty, staff and cadets
believed to be inappropriately influential or coercive. As a result of this, some military
and civilian faculty expressed concern about the impact of religious affiliation on their
personal career advancement. Some cadets expressed objections to what they perceived
to be mandatory prayers at official functions and in sports locker rooms. Additionally,
some faculty members and coaches consider it their duty to profess their faith and discuss
this issue in their classrooms in furtherance of developing cadets' spirituality.
These incidents reflect the need for guidance and training regarding proper
conduct and established parameters.

The entire 100 page report in PDF format can be found here

Mysteryman:

At no time and under no circumstances does any one of the three branches of our government completely acquiesce to other two. Even during war.

I never said that they did.
But,please show me where in the constitution it says that the judicial branch or the legislative branch have any role to play as Commander in Chief of the military.
That responsibility is left solely to the President,and he alone is responsible.
The courts do NOT have any role in the military decisiions regarding war,neither does the congress.

We are Americans. We do not have a king. We do not have a Czar. We do not invest extraordinary powers to any branch, but especially not the Executive Branch.

Authoritarian Conservatives would like to do that, but even they are opposed by more even minded, democratic -small d- Americans.

Even Phyllis Schlafly, no shrinking violet of Conservatism, and Bob Barr, not exactly a tool of the liberals, joined together to oppose the extension of the Patriot Act by forming a group called Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances.LINK Guess who they partnered with to do that? That's right.

The ACLU.

Next time you want someone in your country to have sole, unimpeded, unquestioned power, pack up and move to Iran or North Korea.



Joe(try actually reading the Constitution)Nation

Phyllis Schaffley and Bob Barr are not privy to what members of Congress are now privy to. The Democrats in Congress are more than willing to embarrass, discredit, or disable the current President in any way they can. If even they are not willing to introduce even one bill to stop the surveillance, you can bet they know that if they do, they are putting the country at unacceptable risk. As much as I consider the Democrats clueless, childish, and negative nabobs, I think even they do not want to harm their country to that extent.

Phyllis Schaffley and Bob Barr are not privy to what members of Congress are now privy to. The Democrats in Congress are more than willing to embarrass, discredit, or disable the current President in any way they can.

Foxfyre wrote:

Phyllis Schaffley and Bob Barr are not privy to what members of Congress are now privy to. The Democrats in Congress are more than willing to embarrass, discredit, or disable the current President in any way they can. If even they are not willing to introduce even one bill to stop the surveillance, you can bet they know that if they do, they are putting the country at unacceptable risk. As much as I consider the Democrats clueless, childish, and negative nabobs, I think even they do not want to harm their country to that extent.

How has it come to pass, fox, that you are now privy to more or better information and estimations of threat than Bob Barr?

Is Shaffley discrediting and disabling the president?. The second question requires a yes/no answer. The first requires explanation.