Suppose Majority Of People Vote To Support A Decision That Violates The Seperation Between Church And State...

Question

and suppose you are the president, would you choose to stand by democracy, or would you choose to defend the seperation between church and state?

interesting observation: most people who believe electoral college is a fraud also believe the constitution is more important than democracy.

and vice versa ...

Answer 1

democracy all the way!!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

The ideal of democracy is not "Majority rules" -- but, rather, is a balancing act between the needs of the people and the rights of individuals. Standing by democraxy and defending the separation of church and state would not be at odds.

As President, my job would be to enforce the laws of Congress. But I also would have to respect the rulings of The Supreme Court. It wouldn't matter if a majority of people voted to support a law that violates the constitution -- because they don't enact laws.

But, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Congress passed this law. I could veto the bill (which I would). But then Congress could override this veto. If that happened, then I would rely on the Court to overturn it as unconstitutional -- which they would.

There is still a potential problem. A constitutional ammendment could be passed. In that even, I couldn't do anything about it. However, I would resign my position as president and move to a more enlightened country.

Answer 3

The majority of people do not have the right to vote on such a decision unless they vote to change the constitution. If 2/3 of the states ratify the amendment, then it will be amended. I would choose to stand by the constitution because for the most part the masses do not have the capacity to make decisions that will affect people on such a large scale. More people vote for American Idol than vote in elections. That is a sign of screwed up values.

Fr. Chuck thinks he's right just because the exact words "separation of church and state" are not in the constitution. The reality is that there is a division between church and state because the government is not allowed to make "any law regarding the establishment of religion." I propose that you can't separate it one way without the separation going the other way. The people that run government may have religion but are not allowed to make decisions to increase or decrease the recognition of one religion over another in this country. That is the separation that he refuses to accept or acknowledge.

Answer 4

One must first determine what that part of the constitution provides for this action.. What is stated in those historical documents is simply put..The government shall not create any religion (as was done in England.. and what the people were running away from). They have the "Chruch of England" there. The suggestion has been run amok by courts and the ACLU to mean something entirely different than the original meaning..Fortunately, there is a group fighting the decisions sought by the ACLU. And they are winning the cases.

When people become aware of the actual intent of that document, there will be much fewer hassles.. But the ACLU and many dems are intent of erasing anything to do with the christian church or belief. They attack no other religion!

Answer 5

You can already see that your question has sparked a debate of interpretation. Just as people interpret the Bible many different ways (hence all the various forms of Christianity), so do people interpret the Constitution. Ask any number of historians and you'll get that many different answers, as many people claim to know exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Many people believe that since they were Christians, then we must be a Christian nation. However, they also believed in slavery, so I have a hard time with that argument. Some people, and this is also my opinion, believe the founding fathers were "specifically vague," as they knew that over time cultures would change. That is probably why we have the oldest unchanged constitution and we are still a fairly new country by world standards.

Answer 6

I won't engage in too much of a supposition here except to say this: the violation of the separation that I would deem to be unacceptable under our constitution would be if the people voted for an amendment to their state constitution to 1) adopt an official religion or 2) take law-making power away from the popularly-elected legislature and give it to any kind of organized church(es). Other than those two things, I can't think of anything that I would disapprove of.

What are U talking about?

Answer 7

There actually is nothing in the constitution that states anything about separation of church and state. It does say that the government will not establish a religion. It was intended to avoid the situation we had in England where the government mandated that every citizen be a member of the church of England or suffer the consequences. It goes hand in hand with freedom of religion. Read the constitution.

Answer 8

Since this isn't a Democracy (If it were George Bush would have lost the election) and is a Representative Republic, I would be obligated to go by the Constitution! That is what it is there for!!

You know, if you read the 85 Federalist papers, you will find out by #6 (Madison) that the framers of the constitution feared a Democracy! They DID NOT want the majority to rule! They wanted safeguards put in place that protect the minority from the majority!

Answer 9

It would still require a change in the Constitution for it to happen and I would stand by what is said in the Constitution regarding separation of church and state

Answer 10

Popular vote is still limited by the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. And separation of church and state has been US law for almost 130 years. Those who want the case cites can check the link below. It's the law, whether you like it or not.

If there are enough people who want to eliminate that distinction, the procedure for changing the Constitution is in Article V.

Until then, I don't care how many people want to ignore the legal requirements of the constitution. Until the constitution is changed, it sets an absolute limit, regardless of what the majority says.

Answer 11

The people can not vote to violate the constitution. We are a Republic not a democracy.