tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post4667879366368155657..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Inauguration LawsuitAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-69428917089012169072009-01-15T11:02:00.000-07:002009-01-15T11:02:00.000-07:00Hello All. In response to Anonymous on 1/3, I thi...Hello All. In response to Anonymous on 1/3, I think it's safe to say that added words to the end of the oath are part of the sentence, part of the thought, part of the oath. <BR/><BR/>Also, the President's words are not speaking for himself in this context. Those words are a formal statement and acceptance of his role. That takes it out of the realm of personal speech.<BR/><BR/>Just some thoughts. Regards.Mig22https://www.blogger.com/profile/02473124973568977233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-5591497640294024382009-01-11T12:31:00.000-07:002009-01-11T12:31:00.000-07:00He would be endorsing religion while acting in his...He would be endorsing religion while acting in his official capacity as POTUS at an official government ceremony. That is a very different thing from privately going to church on Sunday. The courts absolutely have a duty to govern the behaviors of public servants acting in their official capacity. Every action of the president is basically a form of speech, so your argument implies that the courts have no grounds whatsoever for constraining the president's powers.<BR/><BR/>Also, equating any lawsuit with violence is naive. They have many other enforcement methods at their disposal. The President would have to follow a court order or be impeached. Nowhwere would violence ever enter in to it.<BR/><BR/>If the president can say whatever he wants without court review, then he can order a warrantless wiretapping program with impunity. Your conception of absolute free speech is wrong when applied to public servants acting in their official capacity.Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00529468338173030097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-8548715524598434052009-01-03T21:31:00.000-07:002009-01-03T21:31:00.000-07:00So, does this right to freedom of speech include t...So, does this right to freedom of speech include the right to add the phrase to the end of the oath of office that says, ". . . or not, as the mood suits me"?Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-61593912594391001092009-01-03T19:37:00.000-07:002009-01-03T19:37:00.000-07:00Two points:You're right, it's not constitutionally...Two points:<BR/><BR/>You're right, it's not constitutionally part of the oath. Technically it ends at "... United States." Since the oath is then over, the POTUS can add whatever he wants. In fact, nothing bars him from asking Roberts to add an ad lib line. To prohibit him from making a public proclaimation asking God for help would violate his right to free speech. Also, Roberts is free to say anything he wants as well without having his rights infringed upon.<BR/><BR/>Second point. Can't buy the violation of the Establishment Clause in that his words aren't establishing anything since he is speaking for himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29617168922891245152008-12-31T07:26:00.000-07:002008-12-31T07:26:00.000-07:00My question is: does this extend to opening praye...My question is: does this extend to opening prayers before government functions? Like before a city government meeting, or a session of congress? Are such prayers simply the individuals involved giving the microphone over before starting the meeting? Or is it the government body issuing a prayer in its official capacity?Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16478237863350039791noreply@blogger.com