Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mr. Palau]

The public was not consulted when the motto was changed to “In God we trust,” so I do not see why it is so important now.

I'm just gunna ignore the democracy part because that violates a Tautology and is therefore false. But this, this is true, and a legitimite point, I will cecede that ground. It was passed indirecctly through representitives.

[Fenrir]

A minor edit leaves my post better giving the message I had intended to convey, so you can stop ignoring that sentence and everything that precedes it.

[Mr. Palau]

Well i know I was being dismissive but I didn't mean for it sound mean, it was just unrational.  Yes our founder's wanted a Republic in which a group of some elected, some not, officials would decide what would be the best for the people. I fell like we have already hashed out the religious people subject and that we won't move any farther on that.

It's also a ligitimite point, if you don't mind me elaborating on the direction your point was taking you in, that the founders intended that an elite moralize on account of the people, or at the very least check the morals of the people if they grow too excessive. So in a sense when it comes to morality a majority is rendered mute.

I don't know if the founders would have considered it fair if the will of the people was crushed. Imagine if you were dicator and changed the motto back, then you would be violating the democratic will of the people that the founder's intended would have significant influence on our government. Ignoring the fact that you would be a dictator and would have crushed it already.

What I'm trying to say is that just as much as the founders believed the people could be wrong on morals, they also believed there was a place for the people's will in the government.

[darkrider2]

I don't know if the founders would have considered it fair if the will of the people was crushed. Imagine if you were dicator and changed the motto back, then you would be violating the democratic will of the people that the founder's intended would have significant influence on our government. Ignoring the fact that you would be a dictator and would have crushed it already.

The public was not consulted when the motto was changed to “In God we trust,” so I do not see why it is so important now.

Well, by those standards Mr. Palau, we've already violated it when putting the motto onto the money, so any repeal of that is probably good.

[Lord Dullard]

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's. God doesn't want or need silly paper money. I don't really think removing 'God' from the money of a secular government should bother any Christians with common sense. It DOES bother religious people, but being religious != being faithful.

[Megaman]

Wait, so religious people have no common sense?

[Willfor]

Wait, so religious people have no common sense?

That is not what he said.

[Megaman]

Oh wait, I read that wrong.

[G-Flex]

I don't know if the founders would have considered it fair if the will of the people was crushed.

If the founders wouldn't have considered it fair for the courts to do their job, they would have given the courts a different job.

My question to you: Would the founders have considered it fair for majority rule to trump people's civil rights, or their protections under the Constitution, or for Congress to pass laws that have absolutely no Constitutional basis or, in cases similar to this, laws that flagrantly violate the Constitution fairly explicitly?

What I'm trying to say is that just as much as the founders believed the people could be wrong on morals, they also believed there was a place for the people's will in the government.

Yes, which is why we have three branches of government, not just one or two. And the (partial) job of one of those branches is to interpret laws and strike them down if they violate the constitution.

[Heron TSG]

It brings a mediocre casus belli.

Against who? Non-Abrahamic folk?

It Makes a group of people happy.

It makes a group of people feel excluded and frustrated that their government is not upholding the separation of Christianity and the State.

It may help in discussion with heavily monotheistic nations, showing that we have similar interests.

Right. Can you name one major nation that is so jingoistic about its religion that it has a significant impact on their foreign policy? (And don't say America. We have so many different cults and sects bursting from mainstream Christianity that my town of 5,000 has 27 churches within 7 blocks of my house, and more outside that I haven't seen yet.)

[SethCreiyd]

I don't know if the founders would have considered it fair if the will of the people was crushed.

That is seemingly the exact intention of the Founders, to empower a non-democratic branch of government to quash democratic, executive and legislative edicts anathema to individual rights.  To protect from the "Tyranny of the Majority," as Burke put it.

Personally, given our legislature's track record, I'm happy our more overeager laws must occasionally retreat before a legal force they cannot trifle with.

[GlyphGryph]

Barbarossa, he wasn't actually supporting it, just seeing if he could come up with the best reasons he could to do so. That they are still pretty terrible was exactly his point, I think.

[Darvi]

Barbarossa, he wasn't actually supporting it, just seeing if he could come up with the best reasons he could to do so. That they are still pretty terrible was exactly his point, I think.

Considering his last line in that post, I have a hard time interpreting it as anything else.

[Heron TSG]

Yeah, sorry about that. Things got a little muddled after reading 80 posts straight.

[Mr. Palau]

I don't know if the founders would have considered it fair if the will of the people was crushed. Imagine if you were dicator and changed the motto back, then you would be violating the democratic will of the people that the founder's intended would have significant influence on our government. Ignoring the fact that you would be a dictator and would have crushed it already.

The public was not consulted when the motto was changed to “In God we trust,” so I do not see why it is so important now.

Well, by those standards Mr. Palau, we've already violated it when putting the motto onto the money, so any repeal of that is probably good.

Representative Democracy not Direct Democracy, but the representatives represent the will of the people, and they passed it and the people made no issue of it so it was clearly in their will then, and now any appeal would be wrong because it would go against the will of the people to do so.
Even if the people didn’t know or care that the motto was changed their representatives would still have been acting out the will of the greater proportion of the people as the percentage of very religious Americans is higher than the percentage of Americans who are Atheists or of a non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith.

I don't know if the founders would have considered it fair if the will of the people was crushed.

That is seemingly the exact intention of the Founders, to empower a non-democratic branch of government to quash democratic, executive and legislative edicts anathema to individual rights.  To protect from the "Tyranny of the Majority," as Burke put it.

Personally, given our legislature's track record, I'm happy our more overeager laws must occasionally retreat before a legal force they cannot trifle with.

To protect from the Tyranny of the Majority, which I was aware of the Founder's opinions on when writing that and still am, is not the same as not listening to the people when considering policies for the country, and the courts have held that putting "In God We Trust" on money is fully within the power of the legislature to require. No case has been brought that this violates individual rights but given the precedent of Zorach v. Clauson and the current composition of the court I expect it wouldn't even be considered.

I don't know if the founders would have considered it fair if the will of the people was crushed.

If the founders wouldn't have considered it fair for the courts to do their job, they would have given the courts a different job.

My question to you: Would the founders have considered it fair for majority rule to trump people's civil rights, or their protections under the Constitution, or for Congress to pass laws that have absolutely no Constitutional basis or, in cases similar to this, laws that flagrantly violate the Constitution fairly explicitly?

What I'm trying to say is that just as much as the founders believed the people could be wrong on morals, they also believed there was a place for the people's will in the government.

Yes, which is why we have three branches of government, not just one or two. And the (partial) job of one of those branches is to interpret laws and strike them down if they violate the constitution.

Actually the SCOTUS has held that it is perfectly constitutional to have "In God We Trust" on Dollar bills, I have a post a while back you should take a look at quoting the opinion in that case.

As far as your bit about civil rights that could be more elegantly termed a Tyranny of the Majority Critique there is a difference between the people passing a bill that is constitutional and one that is not. This has been ruled the former.