Texas Republican primary ballot proposal #4

[Checkmite]

Link

The use of the word "God", prayers, and the Ten Commandments should be allowed at public gatherings and public educational institutions, as well as be permitted on government buildings and property.

Thoughts?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Only the usual boilerplate about demagoguery, hypocritical support of the Constitution, religious nutbaggery, and the like.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Sure, they can have proposal #4, but only if they remove the ten commandments part and acknowledge every god that ever existed in their prayers and on their buildings, including the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Alt+F4]

How are Texas public schools teaching world history without using the words prayer, God and the Ten Commandments?

 

[Towlie]

How are Texas public schools teaching world history...

the same way they're teaching every other subject: with a strong right-wing, revisionist, pro-Christianity, anti-science bias.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm feeling a bit rusty on the subject of high school level civics, but this is blatantly unconstitutional, right? It wouldn't withstand any judicial review, would it?

 

[GreyICE]

Uh, yeah, state constitutions cannot trump the United States constitution. This is blatantly unconstitutional in the worst way.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm feeling a bit rusty on the subject of high school level civics, but this is blatantly unconstitutional, right? It wouldn't withstand any judicial review, would it?

Um as it is not a law, but a statement of republican principles I don't think you can have any judicial review.

 

[Bikewer]

States pass these sorts of silly "resolutions" all the time as a sop to their constituents. They know fully well any actual law would struck down almost immediately.

 

[drkitten]

Um as it is not a law, but a statement of republican principles I don't think you can have any judicial review.

Well, it's a party platform. As such, it can say anything.

But it also implicitly states the thing that the party, if elected, promises to try to enact. Which would be subject to judicial review and would almost certainly be b*tch-slapped into next week.

 

[Towlie]

But it also implicitly states the thing that the party, if elected, promises to try to enact. Which would be subject to judicial review and would almost certainly be b*tch-slapped into next week.

Don't be so sure about that. Texas is already getting away with plenty of outrageously unconstitutional policies as it is, and our current Supreme Court is in a sad state of conservative corruption.

 

[Upchurch]

Um as it is not a law, but a statement of republican principles I don't think you can have any judicial review.

My mistake. Apparently, all I saw was "ballot".

To drkitten's point, what does it say if a party's platform includes a promise to break the First Amendment?

Texas is weird.

 

[Beerina]

Link



Thoughts?

Rejected. However, the Supreme Court's own illogic that supports "In God We Trust" on money could come back to haunt it (the SC) here.

IIRC, the SC's rationale was the words were just cultural, non-religious stuff, which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what it literally means and why it was put there by politicians. Some of the best sophistry they've ever done.

 

[drkitten]

My mistake. Apparently, all I saw was "ballot".

To drkitten's point, what does it say if a party's platform includes a promise to break the First Amendment?

That voters are dumb.

In other news, water remains wet, the Pope is indeed Catholic, and I seem to have misplaced the biologists' report on the defecation habits of bears....

 

[rwguinn]

It's an attempt to get the prayer before football games reinstated.
I think I will insist that the weekly prayer be performed by all religious denominations (Can't wait till the Imam gets his turn, or the Rabbi)
Don't forget to walk on the proper side of the prayer wheel as you go by, and you'd best give it a spin...

 

[drkitten]

It's an attempt to get the prayer before football games reinstated.
I think I will insist that the weekly prayer be performed by all religious denominations (Can't wait till the Imam gets his turn, or the Rabbi)

Actually, the big fight will not be over the Imam or the Rabbi, but the Catholic priest.

Or at least, historically, that's what it's been. The SCOTUS has a much easier time disposing of "fringe" religions, but the idea that governments can pick and choose among major christian sects (which is more or less what Texas has been trying to do for decades -- Southern Baptist for the win!) is still a no-no, even with the current group.

Or perhaps especially with the current group -- the current SCOTUS is 6/9 practicing Catholic.

 

[Upchurch]

the Pope is indeed Catholic

I hear he also wears a funny hat, but that is unconfirmed.

 

[Tormac]

Sorry if this is a bit of topic drift, but I think # 5 is even crazier.

 

[GreyICE]

Well, it's a party platform. As such, it can say anything.

But it also implicitly states the thing that the party, if elected, promises to try to enact. Which would be subject to judicial review and would almost certainly be b*tch-slapped into next week.

It's a statement that there is a party in Texas for which the constitution of the United States of America is not a well-written or well-designed document, but for which that document is based on principles designed to fail.

It's basically a statement that for that party, in that state, the constitution was poorly written and a bad idea.

The Constitution is not an immutable document, like the laws of physics. It's merely a statement of certain political beliefs, codified into law.

One party is stating, with this, that they disagree with those principles.

 

[Puppycow]

Sorry if this is a bit of topic drift, but I think # 5 is even crazier.

I agree. It would require a woman getting an abortion to undergo a sonogram and be shown the sonogram.

IOW, they want the government to be more involved in healthcare decisions, coming between doctors and patients. So much for limited government.