The United States of America is a constitutional republic, in which legislators (Congressional representatives and Senators) are elected by popular vote, and the president and vice president are elected in a two-stage electoral process – a popular vote and an Electoral College vote.

Whoever gains the most votes (a plurality) in an election is the winner of the election. In the USA, which has two dominant political parties, practically speaking this means whoever gains a simple majority of the votes is the winner.

For example, in the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama and Joe Biden received 52.9% of the popular vote, and John McCain and Sarah Palin, 45.7%. The remaining votes went to nominees of several smaller parties. In the Electoral College, Obama/Biden netted 365 votes and McCain/Palin, 173. Thus, Obama/Biden won the election by a clear majority.

In a republic, an elected official serves everyone, regardless of who voted for him or her. This precept has been the basis of British and American government for centuries, and has a history reaching back to ancient Greece and Rome. The winner represents all of his or her constituents, whether those constituents like it or not.

The Constitution does not establish offices like a “sub-president,” who represents the supporters of the loser of an election. Nor does it permit non-supporters of an election’s winner to ignore (legally) any laws or regulations promulgated during the administration of that winner. Participants in a republic, such as the USA, cede their rights of self-government to their duly elected officials, whether they voted for them or not.

This fact is part of the unwritten contract between elected officials and the voters. It was so widely understood in the 18th century that the Constitution does not even bother to address it. People just knew.

Some Americans seem to have forgotten the unwritten contract, and the Rule of Law codified in the Constitution. That is, they act like they can opt out of the 2008 election, just because their guys didn’t win. For them, the minority should rule.

To put another way, Barack Obama is in fact the president of the entire USA, not just of the 69,456,897 people who happened to vote for him. If you weren’t one of them, you cannot cover your ears, yell “la-la-la,” and pretend he lost. Like it or not, he IS the president, YOUR president. You don’t have to like him, or agree with him. You just have to acknowledge he won the election.

That said, there is ample precedent for a sitting president to intrude into our schools and homes using electronic media. No one (reasonable) seemed to object when Franklin D. Roosevelt took over radio broadcasts for his Fireside Chats. Nor when Ronald Reagan broadcast a speech from a public school. Nor when George H.W. Bush, or his son, George W. Bush, did the same. Sure, there were critics, but they didn’t go around screaming they would pull their kids out of school, so they couldn’t hear the president talk to them. No one (reasonable) accused Roosevelt, Reagan, or the Bushes of being fascists, socialists, commies, or members of any other unfavored group.

Because. Each. One. Was. The. President. They each had their critics, but no one seriously rejected the man’s Constitutional right to serve as president and address his public, or “impressionable schoolchildren,” as one blogger called them.

So, Obama-haters, what makes Obama different from the other presidents? Have the definitions of “republic,” “representative government” and “majority rule” changed recently? Is there a new Constitution the rest of us have somehow missed and only you know about?

Or have you decided to opt out of being an American?

The Court’s action puts greater restrictions on religious clubs in public schools. As long as clubs do not limit membership based on religious faith, high schools can permit such clubs. If clubs shut out anyone from full membership based on a person’s faith, the schools have the right to ban the club.

It’s a sensible state of affairs, but I predict the religious right will squeal like stuck pigs, saying, “War on Christianity! War on Christianity!”

The losers in this court battle were two, now-former students of Kentridge High School, who in 2001 applied for a school charter for Truth, a Bible club. Truth members, who could be of any faith, would read Bible verses on the school intercom and decorate the school once a month.

Then a federal court ruled that religion-based clubs in public school did not automatically violate the Constitutional separation of church and state. Truth’s founders, Sarice Undis and Julianne Stewart, upped the ante. They changed the rules of their club and applied for a new charter, since the student council had not yet acted on their first application.

Now, anyone could join Truth, but to be full voting members, they would have to profess “belief in the Bible and in Jesus Christ.”

The student council declined to consider the second application. Then, Undis and Stewart upped the ante again, changing the club’s rules to require voting members to sign a “statement of faith” accepting Jesus Christ as their “personal savior” and the Bible as “the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.”

The student council demurred, but eventually denied Truth’s latest charter application on April 1, 2003. Big surprise. No foolin’.

Two days later, Truth and its founders filed suit, alleging their rights under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Access Act had been violated. The school district, meanwhile, argued that restricting voting membership to only those signing the statement of faith meant the club, and therefore the school, was favoring one religion over any other — a violation of the Establishment Clause.

On April 25, Undis and Stewart (who could have been called Don Quijote and Sancho, by this time) applied yet again for a charter, adding even more details to the rules and purpose of the club.

[To me, their second and third applications smell like a deliberate attempt -- probably encouraged by parents, pastors or other adults -- to test the limits of church-state separation. But it's just a hunch. Why make the club more exclusive each time, otherwise?]

The third application also went down in flames. Now the fate of Truth rested in the courts. No joy there, either.

Lower courts sided with the school district. Undeterred, Undis and Stewart brought the case to the Supreme Court, where it ultimately ran aground. The court declined without comment to hear their appeal, and a related appeal by the school district.

The court battle is not over, according to the Seattle Times. Truth’s founders may file another suit, contending that clubs that limit membership on the basis of gender are precedent, meaning Truth can also limit its membership.

Such an argument, in my opinion, would eventually fail in the courts. Students can easily choose their faith, but they cannot easily choose their gender, after all.

The Times says Undis and Stewart have not decided on their next course of action, if any.
—
Further reading:
Education Week
Ruling by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Truth’s appeal before Supreme Court

In addition, the court clearly restated the premise of the separation of church and state enshrined in both the Iowa and U.S. Constitutions. Christian Dominionists are bound to be unhappy about that part of the opinion, since they insist the USA is a “Christian nation” founded on Christian principles.

Interestingly, the decision was unanimous. Of the seven justices, two are Republican appointees and the rest are Democratic appointees. Had the decision been split 5-2, critics could cry “liberal bias” and “activist judges.” A unanimous ruling speaks volumes for the power of the law.

The issue of course was whether the civil marriage statute in Iowa’s books discriminated against same-sex couples who wish to marry. The Court carefully examined whether same-sex couples were “similar situated” as opposite-sex couples, that is, are their circumstances the same? And does the law as worded specifically create two classifications of couples to be regulated by law?

Same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are similarly situated, but for their sexual orientation, the Court held.

… the similarly situated requirement cannot possibly be interpreted to require plaintiffs to be identical in every way to people treated more favorably by the law. No two people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could run aground onto the shoals of a threshold analysis if the two groups needed to be a mirror image of one another. Such a threshold analysis would hollow out the constitution’s promise of equal protection.

… In other words, to truly ensure equality before the law, the equal protection guarantee requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike.

Later in the ruling, the Court states:

… Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.

The very same arguments advocates of same-sex marriage have been saying for years.

The court then found that existing civil marriage laws are specifically worded to differentiate between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, “placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals” by forcing them to marry someone of the opposite sex. Such wording essentially discriminates against gay and lesbians, excluding them from a limited class of citizens intending marriage, the Court held.

Pointing out that same-sex marriage offends some religious beliefs, the Court then stated categorically it had to hold itself separate from such debates. The law in question regulates “civil marriages,” placing a secular question before the Court.

Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage. … State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. … This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.

As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strong believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.

As notable as the decision to enable same-sex marriages in Iowa is, this particular section clearly reiterates one of the fundamental principles of United States law. Despite all allegations to the contrary, the US has a secular law system. Religious principles and beliefs are not enshrined or regulated or proscribed by the Constitutions of Iowa or the nation. Thus, the religious beliefs of one segment of the population cannot legally be imposed as civil law on everyone else.

The Iowa Court was bold in bringing under its public scrutiny the “unspoken” religious basis for the Iowa marriage statute. One wonders how many other state Supreme Courts will be as brave or as clear.

In that, I suppose, the Bluegrass State is not unique. There’s a whole lotta stupid goin’ on. (Take Zimbabwe, for example.)

Kentucky’s latest contribution to stupidity was the inclusion of “Almighty God” in two state statutes a few years back dealing with the state’s homeland security. Someone finally caught wind of the terminology and has filed suit in state court to have the offending laws rewritten.

The someone is the group, American Atheists. So you can already predict how the religious right and right-wing radioheads will react: “Godless atheists are trying to destroy our Christian nation! Blah blah blah …!”

I mean, the American Atheists have a point, but why couldn’t the plaintiffs been someone less obvious a target for right-wing vitriol, like maybe the Presbyterians headquartered in Louisville?

The right-wing blather will only obscure the real issue, which I hope the courts will settle quickly. Our laws cannot invoke God without running afoul of the US Constitution, specifically this part:

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.

State legislation must abide by the US Constitution, so the Kentucky laws in question are on pretty shaky legal ground.

Here’s one of the two contested statutes, which creates the office of homeland security in Kentucky.

39G.010 Kentucky Office of Homeland Security executive director — Duties –
Delegation of duties — Notification of disaster or emergency.
(1) The Kentucky Office of Homeland Security shall be
attached to the Office of the Governor and shall be
headed by an executive director appointed by the
Governor.
(2) The executive director shall:
(a) Publicize the findings of the General Assembly
stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being
vital to the security of the Commonwealth by
including the provisions of KRS 39A.285(3) in its
agency training and educational materials. The
executive director shall also be responsible for
prominently displaying a permanent plaque at the
entrance to the state’s Emergency Operations Center
stating the text of KRS 39A.285(3);

The second, (KRS 39A/285(3)), says this:

39A.285 Legislative findings.
The General Assembly hereby finds that:
(1) No government by itself can guarantee perfect security from acts of war or
terrorism.
(2) The security and well-being of the public depend not just on government, but rest in
large measure upon individual citizens of the Commonwealth and their level of
understanding, preparation, and vigilance.
(3) The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from
reliance upon Almighty God as set forth in the public speeches and proclamations
of American Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln’s historic March 30, 1863,
Presidential Proclamation urging Americans to pray and fast during one of the most
dangerous hours in American history, and the text of President John F. Kennedy’s
November 22, 1963, national security speech which concluded: “For as was written
long ago: ‘Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.’ ”
Effective: March 28, 2002
History: Created 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 82, sec. 2, effective March 28, 2002.

OK. Let’s test your civics knowledge. Do either of those laws appear to establish a state religion? Do they appear to infringe on anyone’s free exercise of religion? You have two minutes …

dum de dum de dum …

Times up! If you answered yes to both questions, congratulations! You’re not stupid. If answered no to both, or either, you need to think more carefully than you have so far.

The bedrock of the US legal system, the US Constitution, has no mention of God or the Divine in it anywhere. The overwhelming majority of laws in the USA also omit reference to God and the Divine, and if they do, they do not impose legal consequences on the populace governed by those laws.

The Pledge of Allegiance, for example, has contained the words “under God” since 1954. There is no law, however, that requires everyone to recite the Pledge in its entirety, or at all, and none that lays down penalties for refusing to comply with a demand to recite it. [See this Supreme Court decision for details.]

Our currency and many government buildings state “In God We Trust,” yet there is no law requiring everyone to trust in God, to attend church, to believe in God, or for that matter, to spend money.

The Kentucky statute refers to public speeches and proclamations by presidents which invoke the Almighty, perhaps trying to use such as precedent. They are not legal precedents; they aren’t laws. When Lincoln told the population to pray and fast, there were no jack-booted security forces ready to lock up anyone who decided to take a bite out of an apple that day.

The other statute requires the executive director to “publicize the findings of the General Assembly
stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth.” Well, what if he or she doesn’t agree? (Yes, I know, in such a case they wouldn’t likely be holding the job, particularly if Ernie Fletcher were still in office, but forget that for now.) Even a churchgoer should be a little reticent to depend on God as the first line of defense for the state. God has a long track record of being capricious, after all.

This clause clearly imposes a legal requirement on the staff of the homeland security office to acknowledge both the existence of God and His/Her/Its role on protecting all those wonderful Kentuckians. That’s a little like establishing a government-imposed religion, which the Founding Fathers expressly wanted to avoid. (Recall that many Europeans came to the American colonies to escape state religions.)

The First Amendment ensures that Americans are free to believe in God, or not, and to beseech God to protect them, or not. No laws specify how they should worship, or when, or why, or where, or to whom or what.

And if those laws do make such requirements, as the Kentucky statutes do, they are unconstitutional.

And stupid.