Who said we ‘can’t favor religion over non-religion?’ Justice Scalia dismisses notion of neutrality

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday that God has been good to the United States and that the notion of religious neutrality is not grounded in our constitutional traditions.

He made his remarks at a Catholic high school in Metairie, Louisiana, a suburb of New Orleans, according to The Associated Press, which reported.

He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is “no place” in the country’s constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

 

“To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?” he asked. “To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?”

The AP also reported:

He also said there is “nothing wrong” with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.

Scalia said during the Sept. 11 attacks he was in Rome at a conference. The next morning, after a speech by President George W. Bush in which he invoked God and asked for his blessing, Scalia said many of the other judges approached him and said they wished their presidents or prime ministers would do the same.

 

“God has been very good to us. That we won the revolution was extraordinary. The Battle of Midway was extraordinary. I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that do not even invoke his name we do him honor. In presidential addresses, in Thanksgiving proclamations and in many other ways,” Scalia said.

Scalia has consistently been one of the court’s most conservative justices since his appointment by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1986.

Watch the report below.

Comments

182 thoughts on “Who said we ‘can’t favor religion over non-religion?’ Justice Scalia dismisses notion of neutrality

  1. Mary Brown says:

    This is over Holder in drg Lynch’s comment about prosecuting anyone who insults islam. I emailed her and told her what I though of the muslim scum!

    1. tedlv says:

      Please tell me what “drg” is.

      1. Kenneth Clark says:

        Drag…

        1. tedlv says:

          Got it. Thanks.

      2. Mary Brown says:

        drag

  2. tbird90sc says:

    This nation and our Constitution was founded around the very core of freedom of religion, and the founders were not talking about Islam, they were talking about the Christian God. Anyone who would even try to argue otherwise either hates Christianity, hates God, or is just lost in a lie.

    1. Daniel Sackinger says:

      Believe what you want, just don’t force it on the rest of us. We only push back when Christians are pushing Christianity into our laws and onto our kids. Christians are constantly doing this. Stop it.

      1. floral says:

        Christians founded this country for religious freedom. Our laws and the Constitution were based on Christian principles upon which all the Founders agreed (even the 2 deists/atheists supported Christianity as the best guide for the perpetuation of the Republic and civil society.
        The only “force” is coming from the perpetually offended atheists who sue to try to prevent any mention of Christianity or Christian God. Don’t seem to have a problem with muslim prayer and demands to close schools for muslim religious days or changes to the teaching to remove any mention of the influence of Christianity in the development of Western Civilization, even to the point of demanding no mention of pork as major exports of countries. Why don’t atheists stop trying to remove Christianity from public life? It is the reason for the US, freedom, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.

        1. Daniel Sackinger says:

          Wrong. People only sue when Christians try to force their beliefs on people. Religious freedom works both ways.

          As a taxpayer, I have a right to send my kid to school without fear of you Christians sneakily trying to slip your church into the school through the back door.

          Keep your church at church where it belongs.

          1. floral says:

            That is NOT free exercise of religion. Christianity is NEVER to be confined to a church. It is the Body of Believers spreading the good news of salvation. You don’t have to listen, but you have no right to stop or deny it.
            Unless your atheism IS a RELIGION, then you cannot claim a right to free exercise of religion, nor can you deny anyone their rights to free expression to satisfy your agenda to crush them. Christianity is and was as the Founders said the natural companion of liberty and the safeguard of the Republic.

          2. Daniel Sackinger says:

            I don’t deny your right to religious freedom.

            I, and our constitution, deny you the right to force it onto the population against their will.

            Nowhere is Christianity, the Bible, or Jesus mentioned in the constitution.
            That wasn’t an accident.

          3. floral says:

            The Constitution established a limited in scope, and power and rights to action REPUBLIC. ALL it was supposed to do was PROTECT the rights of the individual and protect the liberty, NOT to decide what education is. ALL of the justifications for the Constitution and Bill of Rights and explanations and authorities SAY that Christians wanted this, insisted on this and Framed the Constitution upon their Christian principles. Of course they would not put mention of God or Christianity in the Constitution, in order NOT to give the government ANY means of establishing or justifying ANY theocracy or interference. The 1st was to ensure THAT. Your “interpretation” has no basis in fact, history or philosophy, but does have a lot to do with your inability to deal with God or even the concept. You obviously hate God and Christianity. You must be fearful about your position and beliefs.

          4. Daniel Sackinger says:

            I don’t hate your god. That would be like saying you hate Santa Claus because you don’t want your kids to worship him. A silly concept.

            And I’m certainly not “fearful” about my lack of belief now that Christians are no longer permitted to torture unbelievers or burn us at the stake.

          5. floral says:

            Muslims have and do have their clubs and prayers in school, Christians are denied the same “privilege”, even to the point of being censored for saying God Bless America.
            You are WAY off the Reservation with this fallacious line of argument.

          6. Daniel Sackinger says:

            A “club” is not a curriculum.
            Christians have clubs too, which is fine.
            What isn’t fine is their constant push to make Christianity part of the curriculum. That’s what churches and private schools are for.

            Stop forcing your beliefs onto everybody else’s kids.
            Or you can keep doing what you’re doing and watch the backlash grow until every young person in America rejects Christianity altogether.

          7. floral says:

            Only atheists are attacking. Nobody but atheists are “forcing” anything. Muslims get to decide ciriculum demanding removal of any mention of pork or Christianity from World history (taught in textbooks, as islam is true and Christianity a myth) and disrupt classes for prayer. That is embedding islam in schools. islam is trying to supplant our law in favor of Sharia, and over 20 decisions have been handed down ruling thusly and muslims have gotten off via sharia law rulings by US courts from charges of honor killings, wife beatings, child sexual abuse. You are wrong in everything you say.

          8. floral says:

            Christians are denied their clubs on campus. Christians can be expelled or disciplined for saying God bless you. Muslims get to alter cirriculum and disrupt classes for prayer, harass Jews with impunity. Christianity is not part of the cirriculum nor is it afforded any respect in textbooks, nor do Christians try to make it part of the cirriculum. It is wrong for atheists to try to dispell and degrade Christianity but turn a deaf ear and blind eye to liberalism, atheism and islam being forced down the throats of Christian children.

          9. Daniel Sackinger says:

            Cite sources for these claims. I find it extremely hard to believe Christians have been expelled for saying, “God bless you,” or that Muslims have been permitted to harass anybody.

            Remember, lying is a sin according to your religion.

          10. floral says:

            You have not read the news or deliberately ignore anything that does not fit your agenda.
            You have not a clue what sin is, according to my religion. Bearing false witness against one’s neighbor is a sin and is specifically against a commandment. As far as sources, you have cited not one that Christians are forcing their religion into laws and schools.
            At Columbine, after the shootings by drug crazed atheist teenagers, the school tore down all references to God, the 10 commandments and blessings posted for the dead on their lockers. A student was recently disciplined and sent home for a day for saying God bless America at the end of announcements. There were a lot of comments generated on the sites that carried the story. 2 Atheist students and their parents complained. Muslims in colleges have openly, and been filmed doing so, harassing with impunity, Jews mostly, even violent attacks. Muslims have demanded schools in New Jersey be closed for their religious observance. Read a textbook on world history. It is appalling how inaccurate and biased towards islam and against Christianity. islam has contributed nothing to civilization since its aggressive warrior inception and actively warred against Europe for more than 500 yrs. Yet islam is praised in many school textbooks and Christianity dismissed.

          11. Daniel Sackinger says:

            Cruz campaign official says Christians must take over public schools to stop ‘deception of the seed’

            http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/cruz-campaign-official-says-christians-must-take-over-public-schools-to-stop-deception-of-the-seed/

            Louisiana School Sued for Proselytizing and Religious Harassment of Sixth-Grade Student
            https://www.laaclu.org/press/2014/012214.htm

            Mississippi School Forces Students To Listen To Christian Lecture, Teachers Block Exits
            http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/26/mississippi-school-forces-students-to-listen-to-christian-lecture-teachers-block-exits/

            Thousands of schools in states across the country can use taxpayer money to cast doubt on basic science.
            http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html

            There. I’ve now posted multiple sources demonstrating how Christians are trying to force their beliefs onto America’s kids. You have yet to provide sources to the contrary.

          12. floral says:

            I am a taxpayer, and you have no right to tell me my child cannot say God Bless you or share his faith if he wants to. Nor should my child be subjected to ridicule because he believes and you don’t. Your anger speaks to and reveals fear that maybe you are wrong. If your faith is sure, you don’t need such anger and opposition.

          13. Daniel Sackinger says:

            This is the part Christian conservatives keep missing …

            Yes! Absolutely! Your child DOES have the right to share his/her faith (so long as they’re not disrupting the class in the process).

            But the child’s TEACHER does not (at least not in a public school classroom).

            Because the TEACHER is a GOVERNMENT employee, and our GOVERNMENT cannot promote any single religious belief above all other beliefs.

            This is known as “freedom of religion!” One cannot be free to practice their religion if their government is constantly promoting a different one!

            This is the most basic American principle there is, and yet 235+ years later you guys still haven’t figured this out.

          14. floral says:

            Teachers disrespect Christianity, and promote islam or atheism or liberal policies with impunity. They even slant tests where the only right answer is islam or liberalism.
            The most basic American principle is Christian principles, liberty, and freedom of religion. Government can support religion just cannot establish one. Denying Christians free exercise in schools and promoting atheism and islam is what is happening. You do not understand that atheism is war against religious freedom under the guise of freedom from religion. You are illogical, irrational, inaccurate and completely wrong in your “interpretations” and lack of historical understanding.

          15. DebraJMSmith says:

            We have a constitution that says there cannot be any laws that hinder the practice of our faith beliefs. So we do not have to keep our church at church (in a church building). But considering the true church is the body of Christ, which is all true biblical Christians, our church goes wherever we go. :o)

            God bless you…… May you be saved in Christ some day. :o)

          16. Daniel Sackinger says:

            You are correct that the practice of your faith cannot be infringed, and I certainly wouldn’t support any effort to undermine that right.

            However, that right does not extend to the government itself. A congressman can express his faith, but he cannot use the government to express it. And by trying to put the Bible in every school, these conservative Christians are using government o promote religion, This is what a growing number of Americans are opposed to.

            As to your last comment, I was “saved” years ago as an adolescent. Now I no longer believe. I’m guessing that means Jesus has changed his mind about “saving” me, but if he’s real he should know that it’s entirely his fault. If he had written a book with fewer mistakes I might have never left the faith.

          17. DebraJMSmith says:

            lol… You were never saved. Seriously, don’t kid yourself.

            And again, stop taking our money for your heathen schools, and I might be impressed.

          18. Daniel Sackinger says:

            Then I guess the preacher who “saved” me was a liar.
            But then again, they’re all liars by default.

            Enjoy your heathen computer and internet, courtesy of my “heathen” schools and educational system. If it weren’t for us heathens, you’d be praying for nice weather this weekend instead of checking the forecast.

            Or maybe you’d be begging god to stop destroying the Bible Belt with floods and tornadoes. It seems “god” has had enough of red state intolerance, and his wrath is overflowing.

          19. DebraJMSmith says:

            Preachers do not save anyone. –And my heathen made computer was purchased by me. I did not purchase public schooling for my children, as I did not want it. But I have been forced to pay for that it.

          20. Daniel Sackinger says:

            I pay for schools and I don’t even have kids. But I don’t whine about it because I’d prefer living in a country with educated people. I’ve read enough about theocratic societies and Europe under Christian rule to know that one cannot have freedom under religious rule.

            Can you name a single society ruled by religion where people enjoy freedom? Of course not. Religion is anathema to freedom. It is mental slavery.

          21. DebraJMSmith says:

            That’s great that you can read. However, you are the only one here hung up on the thought of a theocratic society. I have not said a word about that. And if you are fine with a socialistic country (paying for public schools when you did not have children in them), that’s your business. –Not smart, but whatever. And speaking of not smart, most public schooled “graduates” are uneducated.

          22. Daniel Sackinger says:

            You mean to tell me you call our schools “heathen” but you’re not interested in forcing them to adopt Christianity? You’re not interested in Christian government based on the Bible?

            I find that extremely difficult to believe.

          23. DebraJMSmith says:

            I don’t want my government running Christian schools. Are you kidding me???

          24. Daniel Sackinger says:

            Not even if it’s a Christian government?

          25. DebraJMSmith says:

            Christianity cannot be governed, until Jesus Christ Himself comes back to rule and reign.

      2. floral says:

        disbelieve what you want, but don’t force us to deny our conscience and our free exercise of our beliefs, just because you don’t want to face that others believe in something you don’t. If your belief in nothing comforts you, you don’t need to constantly try to degrade and oppose and deny Christian rights to influence and perpetuate the civil society and Republic that Christians founded for religious freedom.

        1. Daniel Sackinger says:

          Nobody is making you “deny your conscious.”

          Do you see unbelievers in your churches trying to make you stop worshiping? No.

          What we DO see is Christians trying to bring their churches into our schools, trying to base our laws on scriptures, trying to keep people from marrying who they love, trying to keep science from being taught, etc. etc. all because of these ancient Middle Eastern beliefs.

          So again, stop trying to force everybody else to live by your religious beliefs and you’ll have nothing to worry about.

          1. floral says:

            You clearly missed the point. Only atheists are forcing God out of public life, even suing over the national motto. Nobody is forcing you to “believe”. Name one law that is being or trying to be passed based on Scripture. Never were there ever homosexual marriages. Only activists have tried to force approval of it. They were not content to accomplish it through the democratic process, which was wroking for them. The Feds have no right or power to have anything to do with “marriage” and what SCOTUS did was unconstitutional, in forcing through judicial bias on emotional not legal grounds, a foreign concept. What gov grants gov can take away.
            And it is conscience not conscious. (did I make a typo?) Do you know the difference and do you have one?

          2. Daniel Sackinger says:

            The original national motto was “E. pluribus unum,” a Latin phrase that means “One out of many.”

            “In God We Trust” didn’t become the national motto until the 1950’s. Just like “Under God” wasn’t added to our pledge until the 1950’s.

            Christians just couldn’t leave well enough alone, and our nation has been fractured ever since. Just like Rome became fractured after adopting Christianity as its official religion in 380. The Christian Dark Ages quickly followed.

            I hope, for our children’s sake, the same horrors don’t repeat themselves, but your crowd seems hell-bent on Armageddon.

          3. floral says:

            That was NEVER the motto, nor was it ever officially the motto.
            Christians were not responsible for the official motto, unless you assert that all the Congress at the time were evil Christians who passed that. When did SCOTUS rule against prayer in school? Was it not around 1954?
            Variations of In God we Trust has been on many denominations and forms of money from the earliest days of the Republic, by law of Congress.
            Your “proofs” are not proof of any plot by Christians to force Christianity. You ignore the Founders insistence that the Constitution and the Republic are founded on Christian principles and Christianity was necessary to the perpetuation of the Republic and civil society. History is against you.

          4. Daniel Sackinger says:

            http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm

            Those are the facts. Put down the David Barton book of fake history and read about the real thing sometime.

          5. floral says:

            Base canard. I have never read Barton or even know who he is. That is straw dog (not rising to the level of straw man) fallacious argument. I have read the Federalist Papers, all the writings of the Founders, all the correspondence between them that is available and the history of money and imprinting and all the SCOTUS decisions on the 1st amendment.
            Your facts are cherry picked, limited and irrelevant to your assertion that Christians are forcing their “religion into public life. The facts support the atheists attack and goal of removing Christianity. You will be left with islam, already trying to embed Sharia law and trying to supplant the Constitution and our representative Republic with a Caliphate. You atheists are top of their behead list. Christians at least allow you to have no beliefs without killing you or subjecting you to a theocracy.

          6. Daniel Sackinger says:

            Don’t like my source? Then here’s another, with pictures:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum

            I’ve now provided two sources that shows our original national motto was E. pluribus unum. You’ve provided nothing. Your unwillingness to accept the facts doesn’t change the facts.

      3. tbird90sc says:

        “Thou shalt not kill” is a Christian law. You do understand where law comes from don’t you ? If it weren’t for God giving his law to man, there would be no law and you would be totally screwed. So be careful what you wish for, you came awful close to getting it the last 7 years.

        1. Daniel Sackinger says:

          Nonsense. Native Americans forbade killing long before the Christians came along with their swords and their Bibles and started killing them.

          Not to mention that Christian history is rife with slaughter. And why not? The Christian god promotes genocide on many occasions. He even drowned every man, woman, child, and fetus on earth. Kittens, puppies, baby giraffes, and baby lambs weren’t spared either.

          Thou shalt not kill? I have a better commandment: Practice what you preach.

          1. tbird90sc says:

            That one really flew over you head didn’t it. It’s not something you can just skim over, you really need to think about it. Get back to me in a few years or decades, or maybe never.

          2. Daniel Sackinger says:

            In other words, you cannot refute a single thing I said about your murderous, genocidal god and his murderous, genocidal followers.

            I think we’re done here.

          3. tbird90sc says:

            Just make it up as you go along then get mad when your idiotic provocations are ignored, I was done with you a very long time ago. Discussion time is over.

    2. floral says:

      Chief Justice Joseph Story Paraphrased “…the purpose of the 1st amendment was NOT to elevate atheism (infidelity) or islam or catholicism or arminianism by prostrating Christianity. It was to remove the possibility of religious strife between denominations (Christian) and prevent religious persecution.”
      Story is considered the foremost authority on the Constitution and the Father of American Jurisprudence. He was trained by many of the Founders, most notably Marshall (yes he WAS a Founder) and was a young man privy to the days of the Revolution, the Founding, and the Constitutional Convention.

  3. floral says:

    I knew Barry Goldwater. He was a most immoral, corrupt man. He kept a mistress in AZ and was a money grubbing power hungry vicious, but had a false charismatic front. While I consider myself a conservative and Barry, , made certain stmts that could be considered as “right”,like a stopped clock 2x a day, he is NOT a bastion of anything moral, conservative, constitutional or anything. The 2 barry’s, many decades apart, are similar in more than name. However of the 2, the 1st Barry had a modicum of intelligence and was better educated. At least the 1st one, knew what he knew and did not make so many stupid statements. However, he like the current barry, is completely wrong about “separation of Church and State” It is not implied in the Constitution and is derived from a single metaphor in a single letter to a single Christian denom suffering under the theocracy of a single state, to which Jefferson said what he fervently believed that the Constitutional stricture that prevented Congress from establishing theocracy should be extended to the States, which it was shortly thereafter by the states actions and ensured by the 14th amendment which extended all but one of the Bill of rights (the grand jury provision) to the States.

    1. Patriot1119 says:

      you knew mr. goldwater? how often were you a guest in his home? if you were ever at his home then you can answer this, who was his famous neighbor? you see, i am originally from arizona, i knew mr. goldwater and my parents knew mr. goldwater too, as they were his contemporaries – he was at our house quite often as well to talk politics with them, and i was familiar with his grandson too, and visited the family home quite often. and please tell me, which is it, floral or hands0ff44? the only reasons for a posting name different than your profile – and for making your activity private – would be either that you are ashamed of your posts because they will show a lack of consistancy or you are just an annoying troll!

      1. floral says:

        Disqus in its infinite screwups, changed my account, when I changed my email address. I was unable to access it so had to setup a new account, with a new user name. Privacy is my right. My comments are out there, on each site. You have no need to look at them on my profile or have access to any info, that is not available when I post.
        I have my opinion of barry. It is founded in my knowledge as an AZ resident and having met him many times and following his “career”. I became very disillusioned with him as a man and a conservative. MY RIGHT. Just because you claim to know him better or intimately is not, in my opinion and experience, any evidence that you have more or better “knowledge”. Certainly, your attempt to disparage and insult me based on my “profile” privacy, is ad hominem, and betrays your lack of logic and rationality. I was clear that it was my opinion, based on my experience. I did not disparage you personally.

      2. floral says:

        Personal insults? If you are annoyed that is on you. Troll? what is that? and why should your ad hominems and insults be of any value to your non argument?
        Barry was wrong about “democratic republic” and wrong about separation of church and state. If we limit the discussion to those points, justify your blind assertion that barry is/was a bastion of conservatism on these 2 points. Your so called personal knowledge does not outweigh my personal knowledge nor do your base canards justify your stated opinion.

    2. Patriot1119 says:

      ‘The 2 barry’s, many decades apart, are similar in more than name.’

      i cannot accept this evaluation. it would be like me telling chef duff goldman of the food network’s program ‘ace of cakes’ that red velvet cake and a livestock salt-lick block have more in common other than the fact they both list salt as an ingredient.

      1. floral says:

        Your comment is valid. I stand corrected. I overstepped in my long time disgust based on my personal knowledge of BG’s moral failures, (my opinion). . However, their attitudes, and history, esp in college, are quite similar. Both were privileged, both were passed along, because of connections, neither had illustrious scholastic “careers”, both esp BG were “rakes” and “players” and partiers. BG however, was ideological single minded in the sense he stuck to one political philosophy with surety, while bo is a frankenstein monster of patched together disparate incompatible ideologies and cannot make a coherent statement on his own. Did you catch the most recent nonsense? bo said haltingly, “we need safer gun laws”. Are the extant gun laws NOT SAFE? Yes I know what he probably meant to say, but that is typical.

        1. Patriot1119 says:

          the first time he says something honest, correct, close to reality, or that makes absolutely one shred of sense i will finally have a fatal heart attack after living with heart disease for the last 30 years!

          1. floral says:

            There is little chance that even the stopped clock that is bo will ever risk your heart in that manner.
            D3,K2 (mk4, mk7) and magnesium what I call the holy trinity of natural supplements (D3 controls over 300 metabolic processes and provides the necessary substance to produce hormones) have been proven to lengthen life and increase health and mitigate if not reverse a lot of heart “disease”. The combo is synergistic. K2 roto roots arteries and keeps calcium in bones and from bldg up in arteries. If you are on statins, you will also need to take bioavailable CoQ10, which is vital, in short and diminishing supply after 40 and eliminated by statin drugs.
            You can get a lot of info from life extension foundation(lef.org) , which compiles research from medical journals and research in general. There was a wonderful graphic on the 17 daggers pointing at the heart. Atherosclerosis is but one. There are many just as important and deadly “arrows”.
            Even though we differ in part, we seem to agree on more. Good discussion and be safe and healthy. (I almost broke my tv screaming at bo’s nonsense yesterday-my bp is so low that the spike from his nonsense barely registers any more)

          2. Patriot1119 says:

            thank you for the info on supplements. my cardiolologist already has me on d3, potassium, and niacin. when you heart gets to the condition of mine, short of a transplant, there is little that can be done except keeping me comfortable. besides the normal stuff like coronary artery disease, i had a massive heart attack over 20 years ago that the doctors said it was a miracle i survived – it left me with a large left ventricular aneurysm (about the bottom 40 percent of the left ventricle wall and the septal wall that divides the two ventricles) that balloons out with the heartbeat instead of compressing to pump like the rest of the muscle. as a result i also have cardiomyopathy and a whole list of other heart ailments. i’ve been told more than once to be ready to bend over and kiss myself good-bye and i always tell them that i’ll live long enough to shyte on their graves.

          3. floral says:

            My dad had a massive heart attack at 65, despite having just passed a flight exam with flying colors. Lost 80% of his heart, “died” for 40 minutes. He outlived 4 cardiologists (Pritiken diet) Died of overdose of antibiotics that left him susceptible to psuedomonas pneumonia 23 yrs later.
            Hope your doc has you on massive does of D3 (20k iu’s) daily 5 days a week and K2 (90mcg per 10k De) and magnesium. If anything will keep you comfortable and help the holy trinity will. (k2 rotoroots arteries) mag helps the heart relax and pump.
            My uncle died of an aneurysm (abdominal aorta). So sorry about your problem. Sounds like your cardio is better than most even suggesting D3 but until or unless your blood levels are kept at 50ng/ml, it is useless and without k2 and magnesium, the calcium the D3 makes availability will occlude your arteries.
            I wish for you a comfortable 2 more decades, like my father had.

  4. floral says:

    We are NOT a democratic republic. We are a Constitutional republic.

    1. Patriot1119 says:

      the way our government was designed by the founding fathers shows their intent was for it to be a constitutionally limited democratic republic, where the constitution limits the power of government. We elect representatives, so it’s not a pure democracy; but we do elect them by majority rule so it is democratic. And the form of, the infrastructure, the total form of government, is republican – it is a republic.

      unfortunately, over the last several decades it is evolving into a plutocracy – with our representatives in government office selected and financed by the large corporations and the wealthiest citizens. right now: 1) the entire congress is currently majority gop – both houses… like that matters since neither side if the aisle seems to want to do the peoples’ business, and paul ryan as the new speaker seems intent on rolling over and playing dead for obama and bills he wants presented for his signature – so much for being the selected leader of the gop in the house. 2) baraq believes he is an oligarch or dictator who doesn’t require the legislative branch for anything – he says he can write and sign executive orders and the people prefer that he does this over waiting for their representatives to do something – i’ve never heard such unadulterated bullshyte in so huge of a quantity from one individual than we have from baraq over the last 7 years… fdr was the only president to serve more than 2 terms and even he didn’t have this much crap inside waiting to burst forth! 3) corporations and the nation’s most wealthy individuals do control not only who gets elected, but who has sufficient funds to run for office – during every election cycle they prove that our form of government is the best money can buy!!!

      1. floral says:

        I agree in principle. I disagree in part. The expansion of the bureaucratic state, unelected, not representative has destroyed the Republican form of government and the intention that government should be limited and govern only with consent (elected representatives) It started with Woodrow Wilson, expanded under FDR was in small part checked under Reagan, Clinton caused the housing bubble by putting the Community Devel concept inculcated by Carter on steroids, Bush failed to see what was happening domestically, and bo has been a disaster of expansion of bureaucracy, government overreach and tyranny.
        Soros has a history of trying to topple governments for his own gain and has almost succeeding when he took down the Bank of England and made billions, which he is busy spending to foment violence in the US. In that respect, and the puppet masters that installed bo in the prez for which he is uniquely unqualified, having no natural talent of any kind and being trained as anti-american and communist from an early age, a frankenstein ideological monster, there is an element of plutocracy, but the real problem is 25-30% of the economy tied up in the unelected bureaucracy with its own hidden laws and courts.

      2. floral says:

        I say the “worst” money can force on the electorate. bo was definitely the worst and least qualified and maybe most socialist, though WW and FDR started the demise of the Republic and the Constitution.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts