Judicial Separation of Powers Compromised
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 129
Current Event
According to Carolina Coast Online.com; September 11, 2011
EPA to preside over fish cases
Washington, D.C. — Commercial fishermen will no longer have their regulatory cases heard by Coast Guard Administrative Law Judges.
Instead, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that as of Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency ALJ’s will preside over all new fishing law enforcement cases.
This measure is being taken in response to an inquiry made by the Inspector General into complaints by commercial fishermen that NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service’s regulatory system was being excessive with its penalties and actions.
Jerry Slaff, NOAA public affairs officer, said the EPA will provide judges for regulatory cases for the next two years. He said NOAA is still looking for a permanent solution to its law enforcement issue.
Existing cases on the docket will still have to go before Coast Guard ALJ’s. However, Mr. Slaff said he’d heard there were only two cases left before the EPA judges took over.
“Former NOAA Secretary Gary Locke said the switch over was a reset on the relationship between NOAA and the regulated community,” he said.
According to a NOAA press release, the administration has been working with the Office of Personnel Management for several months to find a new source for ALJ’s. NOAA looked at a number of factors, such as experience with enforcement cases, experience with natural resource issues and a full support infrastructure.
The investigation into NOAA’s fisheries service’s law enforcement began in 2008, when the Government Accountability Office, which is responsible for conducting administrative investigations, began to look into the Coast Guard ALJ’s. They’d received a request from multiple committees to start an investigation into complains from commercial fishermen that their hearings were unfair and largely ruled in favor of the Coast Guard.
In 2009, the Inspector General began its own inquiry, soon after the GAO completed its investigation. The GAO’s report said the Coast Guard’s ALJ’s were ruling in favor of the Coast Guard in the majority of its cases. However, NOAA said at the time the GAO investigation and the IG inquiry were unrelated, since the GAO investigation focused on the Coast Guard and not NOAA.
The IG inquiry was completed in 2010. The findings showed that NOAA senior leadership and headquarters elements needed to exercise substantially greater management and oversight of the agency’s regional enforcement operations. They also said NOAA needs to strengthen policy guidance, procedures and internal controls in its enforcement operations to address a common industry perception that its civil penalty assessment process is arbitrary and unfair. Lastly, the findings said that NOAA should reassess its Office of Law Enforcement composition, which is currently 90 percent criminal investigators, to determine if its structure is the most effective for accomplishing its primary regulatory mission.
VS
Administrative law judges vs. The Constitution
Founding Document
US Constitution, Article II, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
US Constitution, Article III, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
To Quote the French philosopher Montesquieu:
“Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary controul; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.”
We the People:
The fishermen initially complained that their hearings with the Coast Guard Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) were unfair. Now they complain that NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service’s regulatory system is excessive with its penalties and actions. But the root of their problem is improper consolidation of powers in the executive branch. What are judges doing in the executive branch? When the law is ambiguous, do they decide based on maximizing fishermen’s liberty, or on the budget needs of their agency? Administrative Law Judges are not new, but their influence is growing.
Is Unelected GAB Beyond Control ?
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 128
Current Event
According to Fox6Now.com; February 7, 2012
GAB rejects petition reviews from outside groups
MADISON — Two Tea Party groups are considering a lawsuit against the Wisconsin elections board over its decision not to accept any evidence they find of fraud in petitions seeking the recall of Republican Governor Scott Walker.
“What we’re providing is a way for citizens to be involved,” said Larry Gamble, a member of the Tea Party Group, The GrandSons of Liberty. “13,000 Wisconsinites and people from around the country have joined in this effort.”
The Government Accountability Board on Tuesday agreed that the law only allowed for it to consider rejecting signatures based on evidence brought forward by its staff or the targeted office holders. Board director Kevin Kennedy says there is no process in place for accepting information from outside groups and individuals.
“It’s like a court,” Kennedy said. “You don’t allow people to just walk in and say, I’ve got additional evidence. You want to have certain procedures in place for that. These are procedures that the legislature has approved.”
Two Tea Party groups have launched the web site “Verify the Recall.” Their goal is to make formal challenges based on their findings. “We’re looking to uphold the integrity of the process,” said Ross Brown, of We the People of the Republic. “If we lose clean and honest elections here in the state of Wisconsin, we lose Wisconsin as we know it.”
According to WBAY :February 7, 2012
State Elections Board Rejects Outside Help Verifying Recall Signatures
Madison – Outside groups offered to review more than one million recall petition signatures submitted against Governor Scott Walker, but the Government Accountability Board is saying, “No thanks.”
“We have approximately 13,000 volunteers that have signed up with Verify the Recall to do this,” Ross Brown said.
“This isn’t a verification process, this is a review process to determine whether or not it’s sufficient,” Kennedy said.
“We’ll be searching for known felons, we’ll be searching for deceased persons that show up on recall petitions. I have not heard anyone else talk about things like that,” Ross said.
The board agreed to only accept recall petition reviews from the targeted office holders and those who circulated the petitions.
“These are procedures that the Legislature has approved through the state statutes and administrative code. I think there’s recognition that the public has a stake in this, but this is a representative democracy, not a true democracy in the sense that not every voters gets to step up and tell government how to do it; they do it through their state representatives,” Kennedy said.
After its offer was rejected, members of Verify the Recall said they will consider taking legal action against the GAB.
According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel; Feb. 7, 2012
Analysis: Invalid signatures likely not enough to halt Walker recall
About fifteen percent of the signatures in a random sample of the petitions seeking the recall of Republican Governor Scott Walker could not be verified, according to an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
….
VS
An unelected board vs. The will of the people and the Wisconsin Constitution
Founding Document
Wisconsin Constitution. Article 1, Section 4:
The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.
Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Wisconsin Statue 13.61
…The legislature declares that the operation of an open and responsible government requires that the fullest opportunity be afforded to the people to petition their government for the redress of grievances and to express freely to any officials of the executive or legislative branch their opinions on legislation, on pending administrative rules and other policy decisions by administrative agencies, and on current issues. Essential to the continued functioning of an open government is the preservation of the integrity of the governmental decision-making process. ….
We the People:
When fraud occurs, it is not only an infraction against the candidates or officials, it is a transgression against all of us. An independent random sampling by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel revealed that fifteen percent of the recall signatures could not be verified. Notwithstanding the conclusion by the J-S, this is a significant portion for a random sampling and it warrants further investigation by the Government Accountability Board. In addition, by refusing to redress the grievances of citizens outside of the Walker campaign, the GAB apparently violates the intent of Wisconsin statute 13.61.
Mr. Kennedy compares the board’s review to a court. To the contrary, the Government Accountability Board is part of the executive branch – not the judicial branch. Notice his reference to administrative code to avoid validating the signatures. In other words, his agency made up some of the rules. Such rules were not necessarily voted on by the legislature and are not the result of the representative democracy Kennedy cited. That must change.
As acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence, our government is instituted to secure rights of the people. If the GAB will not secure our right to a fair election process, then it is a form of government that is destructive to that end. Our elected officials created this very powerful unaccountable unelected board; and they must correct that. Click here and follow the links to express your will about the GAB: Wisconsin State Representatives
Bypassing Congress
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 127
Current Event
According to the New York Times News Service; January 08. 2012
Obama’s recess appointments ignore Senate role, experts say
WASHINGTON — To many Republicans and some constitutional scholars, President Barack Obama’s decision last week to ignore a sitting Senate and sidestep the confirmation process for several appointees risked nothing short of an end to the Senate’s role of providing advice and consent on presidential appointments.
Senate Republicans had been using procedural rules and filibusters to block or delay the confirmation of nearly 200 nominations, leaving vital positions vacant and neutralizing agencies they did not like. That compelled Obama to escalate matters further on Wednesday, making recess appointments even though the Senate was technically not in recess.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, began using pro forma sessions, lasting just seconds, in late 2007 to keep the Senate nominally in session and prevent President George W. Bush from making recess appointments.
Republicans have responded with stalling tactics that have left seventy-four nominees pending consideration on the Senate floor and an additional 107 bottled up in committees, many of them for economic posts or to run initiatives that Republicans fiercely oppose.
On Wednesday, Obama went where Bush had declined to go. He invoked his constitutional right to recess appointments to install four nominees — the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, and three members of the National Labor Relations Board — effectively calling the pro forma Senate session illegitimate.
Republicans, lawyers and parliamentary experts say the move, if it survives legal challenges, could herald an end to the Senate’s constitutionally guaranteed right to advice and consent. Eric Ueland, who was chief of staff to former Sen. Bill Frist, said that using Obama’s logic, presidents could make recess appointments when the Senate chamber for as little as a night or a weekend.
“If his position is ever upheld, it gives any president of any party at any time the undiluted power of naming any person to any position in the federal government,” Ueland said.
The White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, said that such assertions were “belied by the Constitution, precedent and history.”
VS
The President vs. The Constitution
Founding Document
US Constitution; Article II; Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
We the People:
The Senate was not in recess. This president is testing America’s resolve to enforce Constitutional limits on his power. Why haven’t our Congressmen and Congresswomen taken action to enforce the Constitution through checks and balances? Why don’t you call yours and ask?
For US House of Representatives, go to http://www.house.gov/
For US Senate, go to http://www.senate.gov/
Catholic Professors Mix Charity and Government
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 126
Current Event
Published May 12, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Catholic Professors Slam Boehner Over GOP Budget Cuts
Dozens of Catholic professors are pressuring House Speaker John Boehner to back off proposed cuts to programs for the poor and elderly, accusing the Catholic lawmaker of diverging from the tenets of his faith ahead of his commencement address at a top Catholic university.
The professors sent a scathing letter to the speaker ahead of his scheduled address Saturday at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. They focused on the House GOP-crafted 2012 budget, claiming it “guts long-established protections for the most vulnerable members of society.” Citing changes to Medicare and Medicaid, as well as cuts to food stamps and programs for pregnant women, the professors from Catholic University and other schools accused Boehner of imperiling programs for the poor.
They wrote that it is his “moral duty” to prioritize those programs going forward and said they hope his visit to CUA will “reawaken” his familiarity with Catholic teachings.
“Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the church’s most ancient moral teachings,” they wrote. “From the apostles to the present, the magisterium of the church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress.”
In announcing Boehner’s address last month, the main office at Catholic University praised him as a “strong supporter of Catholic education” in Washington, D.C. The university plans to award him an honorary Doctor of Laws at the ceremony.
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, asked about the professors’ letter, stressed that the speaker would not be giving a political speech.
“The speaker will be delivering a personal, non-political message at the Catholic University of America that he hopes will speak to all members of the graduating class, regardless of their backgrounds or affiliations,” Steel said in an email. “He is deeply honored to have been invited by CUA to address the school’s graduating class, and is looking forward to receiving an honorary degree from the only Catholic college in our country that is chartered by Catholic bishops.”
VS
Church vs. The Constitution
Founding Document
To quote Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. “
To Quote James Madison:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.
We the People:
The Constitution does not empower the federal government (Caesar) to fund charitable work. Demanding such help from Caesar invites dependence and control over those receiving it. However the Constitution does recognize the right the Catholic Church and all other faiths to perform God’s charitable work. As stated in Mathew 22: Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
Executive Orders Trump the Consent of the Governed
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 125
Current Event
Published October 31, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Obama Orders FDA to Reduce Drug Shortages
Acting once again without Congress, President Obama on Monday was directing the Food and Drug Administration to take steps to reduce drug shortages that administration officials say have placed patients at risk and led to price gouging.
The president signed an executive order — his fifth in a week –instructing the FDA to take action absent congressional approval. Last year, the FDA reported 178 drug shortages — mainly cancer drugs, anesthetics, electrolytes and emergency room drugs — and the agency says it continues to see an increase in shortages this year. The White House also announced Obama’s support for House and Senate legislation that would require drug makers to notify the FDA six months ahead of a potential shortage. Under current regulations, drug manufactures are only required to notify the FDA if medically necessary drugs are being discontinued. Notification of shortages is strictly voluntary.
In remarks before he signed the order, Obama said drug shortages have nearly tripled over the past five years while Congress has foundered. “Even though the FDA has successfully prevented an actual crisis, this is one of those slow-rolling problems that could end up resulting in disaster for patients and health care facilities all across the country,” he said. “Congress has been trying since February to do something about this. It has not yet been able to get it done. And it is the belief of this administration … that we can’t wait for action on the Hill.”
The executive action is part of an overarching push by the White House to portray Obama, who is facing re-election, as an effective counterpoint to congressional Republicans blocking his jobs legislation. Last week, he issued an executive order to help homeowners refinance at lower mortgage rates and to allow college graduates to simplify and lower their student loan payments.
On Friday he directed government agencies to shorten the time it takes for federal research to turn into commercial products in the marketplace.
Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson responded to the series of executive actions by accusing the president of sidestepping the political process and “consent of the governed.” “They overstep the president’s constitutional boundaries. Obama can rhetorically dress this up however he likes, but his actions are not predicated on the consent of the governed, they are fueled by his desire to maintain and expand power. This is not the rule of law, but the rule of man,” ALG President Bill Wilson said in a statement.
The FDA says major causes of drug shortages are quality or manufacturing problems, or delays in receiving components from suppliers. Drug makers also discontinue certain drugs in favor of newer medications that are more profitable. The FDA does not have authority to force drug makers to continue production of a drug. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and FDA Commissioner Peggy Hamburg joined Obama at the White House when he signed the executive order.
Also attending were a Boston hospital pharmacy manager who has regularly encountered drug shortages, and a 49-year-old San Francisco cancer patient who told an FDA workshop last month how he grappled with a shortage in his chemotherapy drug.
VS
President Obama vs. The Constitution
Founding Document
US Constitution, Article II, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
We the People:
This president is governing beyond powers listed in Article II, Section 2. According to www.Usconstitution.net; “Executive Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress….”
Why haven’t members of Congress called for enforcement through checks and balances? Why don’t you call Representatives and Senators, and ask them?
For U.S. House of Representatives, go to http://www.house.gov/
For U.S. Senate, go to http://www.senate.gov/
That All men Are Created Equal
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 124
Current Event
From the speech by Martin Luther King Jr., Speech at Civil Rights March on Washington, August 28, 1963
“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”
…
VS
Racial bias vs. The Constitution
Founding Document
Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2
US Constitution, Article I, Section 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
US Constitution’ Amendment 9 –
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Quoting James Madison in Federalist 38:
THE second class of powers, lodged in the general government, consists of those which regulate the intercourse with foreign nations, ….. to regulate foreign commerce, including a power to prohibit, after the year 1808, the importation of slaves, and to lay an intermediate duty of ten dollars per head, as a discouragement to such importations.
It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!
We the People:
The Founders defined the primary role of government as to secure the inalienable rights of the people. That simple concept is still unique. But to implement this fully, the Founders had to compromise as they wrote the U.S. Constitution in order to form the union. Slavery was not banned immediately, but they placed provisions in it that would ensure its demise. Since representatives were assigned based on population, the three-fifths clause in Article I, Section 2 reduced the power of the states that allowed slavery. In addition, slave importation was curtailed per Article I, Section 9. So it was just a matter of time until our young nation would end slavery.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was the right person at the right time to help us finish securing those inalienable rights. The people must make sure our government always recognizes that all are created equal, and that it bestows no citizens with exclusive privileges.
Overhead and Profit Control
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 123
Current Event
According to Insure.com; Jan. 18, 2011
Medical loss ratios will control health insurance company profits
Starting this year, health insurance companies must spend eighty to eighty-five cents on health care for every dollar they collect in premiums. Individual and small-group health plans are subject to the eighty percent rule, while large-group health plans must spend at least eighty-five percent on care. Health insurers that spend more will have to provide rebates to their customers.
The rule, known as the “medical loss ratio,” has been one of most hotly debated provisions of health care reform.
Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies in the individual and small-group markets must spend at least eighty percent of premium dollars, and insurers in the large-group market must spend at least eighty-five percent of premium dollars on medical care and quality improvement. Insurance companies that don’t meet the spending requirement will have to pay rebates to customers starting in 2012.
The provision is designed to reduce health insurance rates by limiting how much insurers can spend on administration, such as marketing and executive salaries, and collect in profit.
VS
Executive Branch vs. Private companies and the Constitution
Founding Document
The US Constitution, Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We the People:
Under what Constitutional authority does the federal government have to impose these controls upon a free market? None. Will you invest your IRA dollars in a health care insurer?
Romney Wins the Iowa Caucus by just eight votes
Former Massachusetts governor and presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, defeated Rick Santorum by just eight votes in Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses. Despite Romney’s narrow victory, political pundits on both sides of the aisle are heralding the caucuses as a victory for Santorum, the little-known former Pennsylvania senator who was polling in the single digits, in the days leading up to the caucuses. In this article, the author examines the state of the 2012 Republican presidential race, what the Iowa results tell us about the Romney and Santorum campaigns, and a brief history of the Iowa caucuses. Last evening’s results indicate that Romney remains the frontrunner, and that Rick Santorum has solidified himself as the conservative alternative to Governor Romney.
Turnout for the 2012 Iowa caucuses was nearly identical to 2008. The Republican Party of Iowa found that 122,000 ballots were cast in the caucuses. Of those, 30,015 went for Mitt Romney, and 30,007 were cast for Rick Santorum. Despite a first place finish, Romney received just twenty-five percent of the vote. Four years earlier, in 2008, Governor Romney finished second behind Governor Huckabee, with just twenty-five percent of the vote. Romney’s inability to eclipse the thirty percent mark indicates that he remains a weak frontrunner. Republican strategist Karl Rove noted that three-fourths of the votes cast during the Iowa caucuses, were for someone other than Mitt Romney. As the reader can discern, Republican voters, especially those who consider themselves “very conservative” or “conservative,” possess reservations about Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum captured the support of those who considered themselves “conservative” or “very conservative,” whereas Romney was favored by moderates and liberal Republicans. Representative Ron Paul, the third place finisher, was favored by nominal Democrats, Independents, and liberals. Joe Trippi, a Fox News Correspondent, and Howard Dean’s former campaign manager, noted that the Ron Paul campaign worked assiduously to court voters who traditionally do not participate in the Republican caucuses: disenfranchised Democrats, Libertarians, liberal-leaning Independents, and liberals. In fact, Ron Paul captured nearly eighty-five percent of the vote from each of the aforementioned groups.
Perhaps the greatest surprise of the evening was Rick Santorum’s second place finish. For much of the race, the former Pennsylvania senator was polling in the low single digits, and was considered to be a non-factor in the 2012 presidential race. Unlike Mike Huckabee four years earlier, Santorum did not spent copious amounts of money in Iowa, and had not developed a large statewide organization. Instead, Santorum placed a profound emphasis on retail politics. Retail politics, for those unfamiliar with the idiom, refers to visiting homes, knocking on doors, interacting with voters, and traveling around the state. Rick Santorum was the first Republican candidate to visit all ninety counties in Iowa, and delivered over 330 speeches in the Hawkeye state. Santorum’s success is an indication that retail politics, not money is paramount in caucus states. As a result of his strong showing in Iowa, Rick Santorum has positioned himself as the leading conservative challenger to Mitt Romney. Throughout the campaign, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum, have sought to brand themselves as the “non-Romney” candidate. After last evening, just Rick Santorum has earned the title of the “conservative favorite.”
The Iowa caucuses proved, once and for all, that Rick Santorum, not Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, or Rick Perry, is the choice of conservative voters. With Michele Bachmann out of the race, and Rick Perry’s campaign dwindling on the precipice of collapse, it appears as though Rick Santorum has solidified his position as the conservative favorite. While Newt Gingrich is still a viable candidate, it does not appear as though he will be able to generate the same amount of excitement among social and fiscal conservatives, as Rick Santorum. Thus, this author posits that 2012 will be a two person race between Mitt Romney, the favorite of moderates and the Republican establishment; and Rick Santorum, the conservative outsider, and former Pennsylvania senator. While Mitt Romney remains the frontrunner, he will have a difficult time capturing the nomination.
Since 1976, the Iowans have traditionally supported underdog candidates over the presumptive frontrunner, in the caucuses. In 1980, George H.W. Bush narrowly defeated Ronald Reagan, thirty-two percent to thirty percent. Reagan went on to win the New Hampshire primary, and the Republican nomination. Eight years later, George H.W. Bush finished third behind Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson. George Herbert Walker Bush’s nineteen percent of the vote was the lowest total for any Republican candidate who went on to win the nomination. In 1996 and 2000, the eventual Republican nominees, Bob Dole and George W. Bush prevailed in the Iowa caucuses. In 2008, however, Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor shocked the political establishment by defeating Mitt Romney thirty-four percent to twenty-five percent. Romney outspent Huckabee 5-to-1, and had developed a superior organizational structure in the Hawkeye State. In 2012, Mitt Romney defeated Senator Rick Santorum by a paltry eight votes. While Romney can claim a statistical victory, Rick Santorum was the real winner in Iowa. His meteoric rise was precipitated by a superior grassroots strategy, hard-work, the development of a populist-conservative economic message, and his penchant for social issues.. As the reader can discern, the Iowa caucuses, unlike the New Hampshire primary, the focus of the next section, traditionally favors the underdog candidates over the presumptive frontrunner.
The New Hampshire primary has a better track record of selecting presidential candidates than the Iowa caucuses. According to Jon Huntsman, “Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents.” As such, Mr. Huntsman has decided to focus his campaign solely on New Hampshire. Since 1952, just three Republican candidates: Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., (1964); Pat Buchanan (1996); and John McCain (2000), have won the New Hampshire primary and lost the Republican presidential nomination. Conversely, five Democratic candidates: Estes Kefauver (1952 and 1956), Edmund Muskie (1972), Gary Hart (1984), Paul Tsongas (1992), and Hilary Clinton (2008), have won the primary and gone on to lose the nomination. As the reader can discern, no Republican candidate has lost New Hampshire and won the Republican nomination since George W. Bush in 2000. At this writing, Mitt Romney holds a twenty-three point lead over Ron Paul, forty-one percent to eighteen percent. Newt Gingrich is in third place with thirteen percent of the vote, and Jon Huntsman is in fourth place with nine percent of the vote. It appears certain that Mitt Romney will prevail in New Hampshire, a state in which the Massachusetts governor owns a summer home, and has captured numerous big name endorsements, including Senator Kelly Ayotte, former Governor John Sununu, and Judd Gregg, a former governor and senator. Based on historical trends, if Mitt Romney wins the New Hampshire primary, he will win the Republican nomination. With a victory in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney would become the first Republican nominee to ever win the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary in the same election cycle (excluding 1984, 1992, and 2004, which were uncontested).
The 2012 Republican presidential contest is poised to be one of the most enthralling and highly anticipated races in American history. While Mitt Romney is the frontrunner and presumptive nominee, it is much too early in the process to discount Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. Each of the aforementioned candidates has worked assiduously to brand themselves as the “true” conservative, anti-establishment candidate. The alacrity that has engulfed Republican primary voters is palpable and does not show signs of dissipating. Unlike 2008, when John McCain had the nomination locked up by early February, the author predicts that the 2012 contest will be a long, drawn out process. This is due, in part, to the fact that the Republican Party discarded the winner-take-all delegate acquisition model, and instead employed a system that awards delegates proportionally. If, however, Mitt Romney prevails next Tuesday in New Hampshire, the race will conclude before it ever began.
Despite Rick Santorum’s strong showing in Iowa, and the conservative movements clamoring for a candidate other than Mitt Romney, it appears certain that the Massachusetts governor, who has received hundreds of endorsements, and raised $32 million at this writing, will win the Republican nomination. The American electorate should begin to prepare for what is expected to be the most expensive and vitriolic general election campaign in history, between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. If conservatives intend to achieve their ultimate goal: ensuring that Barack Obama is a one-term president, it is imperative that they rally around the candidate who best exemplifies their views on seminal policy issues.
The 2012 Presidential Election and the Demise of Public Financing.
Introduction
The 2012 presidential election is poised to become the most expensive in American history. President Obama has indicated that the he intends to rasie $1 billion for his reelection campaign. This paper examines the implications that the decisions made by George W. Bush and Barack Obama to reject public financing during the 2000 primary and 2008 general election will have on the future of presidential campaigns. The passage of comprehensive campaign finance reform coupled with the decisions made by Bush and Obama to reject public financing, revolutionized American politics and contributed to the demise of public financing.
Public Financing, 1974-2008
The public financing of American presidential campaigns was inaugurated by the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. Corrado (1997) insisted that “the most innovative aspect of the 1974 law was the creation of an optional program of public financing for presidential general election campaigns and public matching subsidies for presidential primary campaigns” (p. 32). Public financing provided candidates with one-for-one matching subsidies for the first $250 the candidate raises from each individual contributor, and it establishes spending limits for both primary and general election campaigns (Malbin, 2009; M. Green, 2002; Samples, 2006). Malbin (2009) suggested that “in the general election the two major party nominees may receive a flat grant that came to $84.1 million in 2008” (p. 1).
According to Malbin (2009) the purpose of federal financing is threefold: allowing the underdog candidates to remain competitive; generating more competition in presidential primaries; and encouraging candidates to broaden their fundraising bases. The public financing system is funded by a $3 tax check-off on individual tax returns (Fleishman, 1975; Malbin, 2009). The number of citizens donating to the presidential election fund has steady declined since the 1980s (Malbin, 2009). In 2008 less than six percent of American taxpayers contributed to the voluntary presidential campaign fund (Malbin, 2009). The remainder of this paper examines the impact that the decisions made by George W. Bush in the 2000 primary and Barack Obama in the 2008 general election to reject public financing, will have on the future of presidential campaigns; and the role fundraising will play in the 2012 presidential election.
Bush, Obama, and the demise of public financing
In 2000, George W. Bush became the first presidential candidate to reject public financing for a presidential primary campaign. J. Green and Corrado (2003) insisted that President Bush’s decision to reject public financing for his 2000 Republican primary campaign revolutionized American politics. Bush (2010) posited that accepting public financing would have limited the amount of money he could spend on his primary campaign, and prevented him from winning the Republican nomination. Public financing forced candidates to abide by spending caps and limited the amount of money they could spend on their campaigns (J. Green & Corrado, 2003; Malbin, 2009; Abramson, Aldrich, & Rhode, 2003). Rejecting public financing allowed candidates to raise unlimited amounts of money and exponentially increase their chances of capturing their party’s nomination (J. Green & Corrado, 2003).
George W. Bush’s decision to reject public financing for the 2000 Republican primary transformed American politics. Parti (2011) found that four years later, George W. Bush, Howard Dean, and John Kerry all rejected public financing for their primary campaigns. What is more, in 2008, Hilary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul all rejected public financing during the primaries (Parti, 2011; J. Green & Kingsbury, 2011). If candidates intend to compete in future presidential primaries or general election campaigns, it will be imperative that they reject public financing (Ceaser, Busch, & Pitney, Jr., 2009; Parti, 2011). Nothing has done more to transform political campaigns than the decisions made by the aforementioned candidates to reject public financing during the primaries.
History was made in 2008 when Senator Barack Obama became the first presidential candidate to reject public financing for the general election campaign. Barack Obama’s decision to reject public financing allowed him to raise more money than any other presidential candidate in history: 742.6 million (Ceaser et al., 2009; Heileman and Halperin, 2010). Had Senator Obama accepted public financing, the amount of money he would have been allowed to spend on his campaign would have been capped at $84.1 million (Ceaser et al., 2009). Ceaser et al. (2009) found that in the final week of the campaign, Obama outspent John McCain, who accepted public financing—by a colossal $100 million. Being that Senator McCain was constrained by public financing, the amount of money he could spend on the get-out-the-vote efforts and television advertisements in key swing states was severely limited (Corrado, 2011; Ceaser et al., 2009). As the reader can discern from the myriad statistics provided, the 2008 presidential election contributed to the demise of public financing.
Barack Obama’s ability to raise nearly $750 million during the 2008 presidential election indicates that public financing is no longer viable (Malbin, 2009; Haynes & Pitts, 2009). If the Republican nominee intends to compete with President Obama in 2012, it will be imperative that they reject public financing (Roarty, 2011). In addition to the demise of public financing, the 2008 presidential election was symbolic in another regard: it proved that candidates will need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars if they intend to win the presidency (Ceaser et al., 2009; Kenski, Hardy, & Jamieson, 2010; Edwards & Wayne, 2010). The profound emphasis placed on fundraising runs counter to the intentions of the Federal Elections Campaign Finance Act of 1971: to limit the influence of money in politics (Magleby, 2010; Boatright, 2009). It is evident from Barack Obama’s near-landslide victory in the 2008 presidential election, that fundraising will be of paramount importance in future presidential elections.
Fundraising and Public Financing in the 2012 Presidential Election
As noted in the introduction, the 2012 presidential election is poised to be the most expensive in American history. Barack Obama has made it abundantly clear that he intends to raise and spend in excess of $1 billion, on his reelection campaign (Allen, 2011; Cillizza, 2011; Kavangh, 2010). According to Open Secrets (2011), Barack Obama has already raised $150 million for his 2012 presidential campaign. In 2008, Barack Obama raised more money than any other candidate in presidential history: $742.6 million (Ceaser et al., 2009; Heileman & Halperin, 2010). Of that total, nearly $600 million came from contributions by individuals (Corrado, 2011; Magleby, 2010; Sabato, 2010).
If Barack Obama is able to raise $1 billion in 2012, it will be difficult for the Republican candidate to compete in pivotal swing states. As aforementioned, in 2008, Barack Obama outspent John McCain in key swing states by $100 million (Boatright, 2009; Schier & Box-Steffensmeier, 2009). If the Republican nominee intends to compete with Barack Obama in 2012, it is imperative that they place a profound emphasis on fundraising.
Roarty (2011) posited that if the Republican nominee intends to defeat Barack Obama in 2012, it is imperative that they reject public financing. By accepting public financing in 2008, the amount of money John McCain could spend in the general election was capped at $84.1 million (Magleby, 2010; Malbin, 2008; Parti, 2011). What is more, Ceaser et al (2009) found that by accepting public financing, McCain was outspent in key swing states (Indiana, 7-1; Ohio, 2-1; North Carolina, 3-2; and Virginia, 4-1). By rejecting public financing, the GOP nominee will be able to raise an unlimited amount of money, and compete with President Obama in each of the aforementioned states.
Perhaps the most important fundraising strategy for the Republican nominee to employ is raising money in small increments. According to Rove (2010), both the Bush and Obama campaigns received copious amounts of money from small donors. Research by Malbin (2008) found that Barack Obama raised $452 million in donations of $200 or less. Four years earlier, George W. Bush raised $256 million from contributions of $200 or less (Ceaser & Busch, 2005; Coffey & Green, 2007; Malbin, 2008). Online fundraising is paramount in American presidential campaigns (Johnson, 2007; Winograd & Hais, 2008). Gingrich (2010) found that in order to defeat President Obama in 2012, the Republican nominee must develop an online fundraising presence, and be able to raise large sums of money in small increments.
By adhering to the three pronged fundraising strategy outlined in this section, the Republican nominee will be able to compete with Barack Obama, and increase their chances of winning the presidency. As the reader can discern from the myriad information provided, Barack Obama’s ability to raise $750 million during the 2008 presidential election, contributed to the demise of public financing. It appears certain that all future presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, will eschew public financing. In order to prevail in contemporary presidential campaigns, candidates must raise copious amounts of money.
Concluding Remarks
The decisions made by George W. Bush and Barack Obama to reject public financing, contributed to its demise. It is evident fro, this paper that money is the driving force behind political campaigns and American public policy. The findings of this paper, it is hoped, have provided valuable new insights into the influence of money in politics. Furthermore, the author sought to provide an extensive analysis of fundraising in the 2012 presidential election. The 2012 presidential election will be the most expensive in American history. In order to compete with Barack Obama, conservatives will have to rally behind a candidate, and place a profound emphasis on fundraising. An anemic fundraising campaign by conservatives will guarantee an Obama victory in 2012.
References
Abramson, P.R., Aldrich, J.H., & D.W. Rohde. (2003). Change and continuity in the 2000 and 2002 elections. Washington, D.C: Congressional Quarterly.
Allen, M. (2011, August 25). Obama 2012 launches project vote. Politico. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62049.html
Armstrong, J., & Moulitsas, M. (2006). Crashing the gate: Netroots, grassroots, and the rise of people-powered politics. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Boatright, R.G.(2009). Campaign finance in the 2008 election. In Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., & Schier, S. (Eds.), The American elections of 2008 (pp. 137-161). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bush, G.W. (2010). Decision points. New York: NY, Crown Publishing.
Ceaser, J.W., & Busch, A.E. (2005). Red over blue: The 2004 elections and American politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Ceaser, J.W., Busch, A.E., & Pitney, J.J., Jr. (2009). Epic journey: The 2008 elections and American politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Cillizza, C. (2010, December 12). Obama’s reelection campaign could hit billion-dollar mark. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62049.html
Coffey, D.J., & Green, J.C. (2007). The state of parties: Change and continuity in 2004. The state of parties: The changing role of contemporary American politics (5th ed.), (pp. 1-15). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Corrado, A. (1997). Money and politics: A history of campaign finance law. In Corrado, A., Mann, T.E., Ortiz, D.R., Potter, T., & Sorauf, F.J. (Eds.), The new campaign finance sourcebook (pp. 27-60). Washington, D.C: Brookings Institute Press.
_________ . (2011). Financing the 2008 presidential election. In Magleby, D.B., & Corrado, A. (Eds.), Financing the 2008 election (pp. 127-166). Washington, D.C: Brookings Institute Press.
Edwards, III, G.C., & Wayne, S. (2010). Presidential leadership: Politics and policy making (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Fleishman, J.L. (1975). The 1974 Federal Elections Campaign Act Amendments: The shortcomings of good intentions. Duke Law Journal, (4), 851-899. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/pdfplus/1372084.pdf?acceptTC=true
Gingrich, N. (2010). To save America: Stopping Obama’s secular-socialist machine. Washington, D.C: Regnery.
Green, J.C., & Corrado, A. (2003). The impact of BCRA on campaign finance. In Malbin, M.J. (Ed.), Life after reform: When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act meets politics (pp. 175-199). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Green, J.C., & Kingsbury, D. (2011). Financing the 2008 presidential nomination campaigns. In Magleby, D.B., & Corrado, A. (Eds.), Financing the 2008 election (pp. 86-127). Washington, D.C: Brookings Institute Press.
Green, M. (2002). Selling out: How big corporate money buys elections, rams through legislation, betrays our democracy. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Haynes, A., & Pitts, B. (2009). Making an impression: New media in the 2008 presidential nomination campaigns. PS: Political Science and Politics 42(1), 53-58. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/224982207/fulltextPDF/131DB1B 049D794D9313/13?accountid=11243
Heilemann, J., & Halperin, M. (2010). Game change: Obama, the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the race of a lifetime. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Johnson, D.W. (2007). No place for amateurs: How political consultants are reshaping American democracy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kavangh, T. (2010, December 13). Obama’s 2012 campaign fundraising could top $1 billion. Politics Daily. Retrieved from
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/13/obamas-2012-campaign-fundraising-could-top- 1-billion/
Kenski, K., Hardy, B.W., & Jamieson, K.H. (2010). The Obama victory: How media, money, and message shaped the 2008 elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Magleby, D.B. (2010). The change election: Money, mobilization, and persuasion in the 2008 federal elections. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Malbin, M. (2008, November 24). Reality check: Obama raised about the same percentage from small donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004. Retrieved from http://www.cfinst.org/press/PReleases/08-11-24/Reality_Check_- _Obama_Small_Donors.aspx
________. (2009, April 5). Small donors, large donors and the internet: The case for public financing after Obama. Retrieved from http://www.cfinst.org/president/pdf/PresidentialWorkingPaper_April09.pdf
Open Secrets (2011). 2012 presidential candidate fundraising summary. Retrieved from http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/summary.php
Parti, T. (2011, August 5). Will 2012 be the end of the presidential public financing system? Retrieved from
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/08/the-end-of-presidential-public-financing.html
Roarty, A. (2011, April 21). Campaign finance will go largely unregulated in 2012. National Journal. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/872165804/fulltext/131DB288BA E7A498734/6?accountid=11243
Rove, K. (2008, December 3). McCain could not compete with Obama’s money. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835139848377873.html
_______. (2010). Courage and consequence: My life as a conservative in the fight. New York, NY: Threshold Editions.
Sabato, L.J. (2010). The year of Obama: How Barack Obama won the White House. New York, NY: Pearson-Longman.
Samples, J. (2006). The fallacy of campaign finance reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Schier, S.E., and Box-Steffensmeier, J.M. (2009). The general election campaign. In Schier, S.E., & Box-Steffensmeier, J.M. (Eds.), The American elections of 2008 (pp. 55-79). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Semiatin, R.J. (2008). Voter mobilization—into the future. In Semiatin, R.J. (Ed.), Campaigns on the cutting edge (85-103). Washington, D.C: Congressional Quarterly.
Trent, J.S., & Friedenberg, R.V. (2007). Political campaign communication: Principles and practices (6th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Vargas, J.A. (2008, November 20). Obama raised half a billion online. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/20/obama_raised_half_a_billion_on.html
Walensky, R. (2007, November 6). Ron Paul sets online fundraising record with $4.2 million in one day. Retrieved from
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308404,00.html
Winograd, M., & Hais, M.D. (2008). Millennial makeover: MySpace, YouTube, & the future of American politics. New Brunswick, NY: Rutgers University Press.
A Tale of Two Towns
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 122
Current Event
According to FoxNews.com; October 07, 2011
Atheists Demand City Remove Cross in Tennessee
The mayor of Whiteville, Tennessee said his community is under attack from a national atheist organization that is threatening to sue unless they remove a cross atop the town’s water tower.
But the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation said the cross is a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. They’ve given the mayor until the end of October to remove the cross. If he refuses, they have threatened to sue.
According to The Blaze.com; October 27, 2011
Town Protests Atheists’ Threats by Chopping off Part of Controversial Water Tower Cross
Remember the controversial cross on a water tower in Whiteville, Tennessee? Earlier this month, the Blaze reported that Mayor James Bellar was planning to cave to atheists’ demands and have the religious symbol moved to private land. Bellar, who defended its presence, claimed that the town could not afford to pay for an expensive legal battle with Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) — the “freethinking” group seeking its removal. Thus, moving it to a nearby highway seemed like the best possible solution.
Instead of taking the symbol down and moving it, he ordered one of its arms be removed. So, the cross (minus one of its arms) is still standing on the top of the water tower, essentially serving as a reminder of what FFRF forced the town to do.
According to FoxNews; December 14, 201
Texas Town Brace for Battle With Atheists
Driving through the tiny rural town of Athens, Texas, and you’d be hard pressed to find something that might catch national attention — or so it was until about a week ago.
An hour and a half outside of Dallas, the Athens town square is dominated by the county courthouse, and this time of year, Christmas decorations are on each corner. But it is the nativity scene across the street from the Taco Bell that has caused controversy.
It started with a simple letter. As Henderson County commissioner Joe Hall tells it, he received the shock of his life when he found out a Wisconsin group was demanding that the nativity scene be taken down.
In the meantime, one or two women standing stand each day in front of the nativity scene with a petition urging others to sign in support of keeping the nativity where it is. A group of pastors is also planning a rally this weekend. A pastor who’s planning it says he expects a couple thousand people to pack the square.
What happens next? Gaylor said the Freedom From Religion Foundation will wait and see what county government does, but the group’s next move could include legal action.
Hall has said if it comes to that, the county has already received offers of legal help. He also says the nativity scene will come down “after Christmas, or when hell freezes over.”
According to FoxNews Insider “December 19, 2011
Thousands turned up for a rally in Athens, Texas to protest the removal of a nativity scene in front of the Henderson County courthouse. The campaign started when a Wisconsin-based atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation, asked officials to remove the display from the courthouse lawn.
One supporter at the rally said, “It’s not about the nativity scene. It’s all about Jesus. It’s the reason that we celebrate Christmas. Jesus is Christmas.” A judge has ruled that the scene will be able to remain in place.
VS
An atheist group vs. Two towns and the Constitution
Founding Document
US Constitution, First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
To quote President John Adams:
“The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
We the People:
They may have been able to settle the issue in Whiteville by installing religious symbols for each separate faith of the residents. Thus the town would have not shown favoritism. For example, they could have installed a Cross for Christians, a Star of David for those of the Jewish faith, The Wheel of Dharma for Buddhists, and the Lotus Flower for Hindus. And for the atheist, they could have left a blank space or installed a sculpture of a big-government building.
To address the Constitutionality: Again, the first amendment limits Congress but not states or municipalities. Different communities react differently to the intimidating tactics. Some will succumb to the unconstitutional restrictions. Others will pay for and fight for their liberty.
