Now, as the majority party under a Republican president, they want to reshape the federal court system to curb what they see as its liberal bias -- especially in decisions on social issues such as school prayer, civil rights and abortion.
Both principles, separation of powers and separation of church and state, protect the rights of minorities. The Theocratic right has worked for decades -- ever since the civil rights era -- to achieve the power necessary to change the constitution. They intend to establish the Christian religion. Then you can be sure that they will try to revise the Constitution to ensure that it can never be changed again by democratic means.
To see the impending threat to religious liberty, just read these paragraphs with the first amendment protections for minority faiths in mind:
Democrats say the filibuster provides protection from "tyranny of the majority."
They note that the framers of the Constitution intended the House of Representatives to be run by the majority, but specifically designed the Senate as a forum where the minority party and small states would be given greater weight.
Taking away the filibuster, the Democrats argue, would fundamentally alter the character of the Senate and, by extension, the balance between majority rule and minority rights enshrined in the Constitution.
"The whole design was to protect minority interests," said Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science and an expert on judicial history at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. "So what is being proposed now is of immense historical proportions."
But Republicans argue that Democrats are using the filibuster in a way the framers did not intend -- not to block legislation, but to withhold the "advice and consent" the Constitution requires the Senate to give on presidential nominations to the executive and judicial branches.
If you wonder what kind of treatment people of minority faiths can expect in their "Christian America," just look at the heavy-handed way the Theocrats are treating the minority party. Democrats and moderate Republicans are already being treated as second class citizens in this country.
10 comments:
Bruce: Do check www.cuny.edu and at that site click on events. On the calendar for April 29, click on the calendar for April 29 and bring this remarkable conference to the attention of your folks here with an announcement of some sort.
They are exploring our favorite topic of Dominionism and Israel withing the political strategies of the Religious Right.
Don't leave it up to Barry Lynn or the Interfaith folks to report for you. Make a way to get there yourself.
You are making quite a leap from revising Senate rules to modifying the Constitution and accusing the theocrats of doing it. By changing the rule they are not in any way harming the Constitution since the Constitution does not address the issue. The protection the Constitution offers smaller states is an equal vote in the sense that the smallest state has the same number of votes as the largest state. The filibuster was not intended to do this, nor does it effectively do this as one senator can stand opposed to 99 senators and effectively rule as a little tyrant by blocking legislation - regardless of his state's size. Changing the filibuster rule is simply not a threat to our freedom. Remember, when voting on the budget bills, the filibuster is prohibited! Is this, too, a threat? Does this in any way push the balance of power to those in the majority? Of course it does not.
By using the filibuster, the Democrats are avoiding their Constitutional responsibility to give advice and consent by preventing the entire Senate from offering said advice and consent.
The link to information on The Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right didn't post right. Let's see if it works this time.
I hate to miss the meeting and had planned to go, but I decided to stop studying and talking about the radical right and start doing something to organize some opposition. Saturday, I was elected for the first time to be a delegate to the regional meeting for my political party. That meeting is on April 30.
jtr,
None of your talking points addresses the real problem -- the rights of minorities.
Our constitution protects the rights of minorities. The current regime is stripping those protections away.
"Talking points?" Excuse me?
The points I raised directly address points you made in the original post. To quote you, "To see the impending threat to religious liberty, just read these paragraphs with the first amendment protections for minority faiths in mind..." You then proceed to write about filibuster rules. Again, how does changing a Senate rule (not a Constitutional issue here...) affect the rights of religious minorities? Are you really speaking of political minorities? What "rights" of theirs are being violated? Both the House and Senate are based upon majority rule. If a minority party wants to get their legislation passed, they need to convince more voters. Changing a Senate rule is not trampling on anyone's "rights".
jtr,
Exactly what does a filibuster do if it does not protect the rights of convicted minorities to influence legislation?
Not everything that makes our democracy work is included in the Constitution. Marbury Vs. Madison established the courts power to declare nullify unconstitutional laws, or judicial review. The Senate created the filibuster and it has been used for two hundred years.It is now traditional and that tradition should be honored. The Republicans so quickly forget that when they were the minority party it was one of their weapons to keep the Democrats from running rough shod, and that they will become a minority party sometime in the future again. Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it, and then rue the day. I can remember talk of changing the 22nd amendment so Reagan could run for a 3rd term, how the Republican rued the term limits they fought so hard to get because of FDR.
A filibuster prevents a vote, Bruce. It does not protect the rights of "convicted minorities" (is that a typo? I am not sure what you mean here...). If preventing votes is so vital to our freedom and to our Constitution, should you not be as adamant about getting the filibuster in the House of Representatives?
We need to remember that the Republicans are talking about changing the filibuster rule for one type of vote: judicial nominees. (George Will recently wrote an excellent article about this. Here is a link to it. To be honest, this article is causing me to rethink my position.) Filibustering has long been prohibited on votes for the appropriations bills and yet we do not hear complaints that the minority party's rights are being violated. Also remember that my contention is that you are making a big leap from changing the filibuster rule on a specific vote to a threat to our religious liberty. I do not see the connection.
Dot # 1 get judges in that will allow coercive prayer in school, putting up idols in courthouses of a religious set of rules that prohibits idols, (go figure), deny women the right to control their own bodies by enforcing moral standards that not everyone believes.
Dot# 2 Have a half-wit President that appoints theologically correct judges.
Dot # 3 Remove fillibust roadblock keeping anti-constitutional judges from sitting on the bench.
Is that simple enough for you?
Post a Comment