• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Constitutional look at the Blunt Amendment

The Blunt Amendment violates the constitution for the simple unavoidable fact that the first Amendment, (Religious Liberty) which the Republicans are claiming is their basis, clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The Republicans are leaping with both feet on the “Free- Ex” clause of the amendment and waving it wildly in the air, while ignoring the “Establishment Clause”. That won't get them anywhere.

The First Amendment forbids not only establishments, but also any law respecting or relating to an establishment. Most importantly, it forbids any law respecting an establishment of "religion." It does not say "a religion," "a national religion," "one sect or society," or "any particular denomination of religion." It is religion generically that may not be established.

Compare these two phrases:

• Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
• Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.

Clearly the first example makes no sense on its own. It must refer back to the establishment clause to get its meaning. When Rick Santorum stands on his soap box and preaches “Whatever happened to the first amendment right to Free Exercise of Religion?”; he says this being completely oblivious to the wording of the amendment he is citing. His argument is over birth control, which is not a religion. However, he’s framed it as such. He is claiming birth control as religion. When he cites the free exercise of religion he must refer back to the establishment clause for his definition.

If the framers meant what they said and said what they meant, then Congress may abridge the free exercise of religion so long as Congress does not prohibit it. “Freedom of religion embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be”. Cantwell v. Connecticut

The establishment clause does more than ban the federal government from establishing religion; it bars even laws respecting establishment. The Blunt Amendment establishes religion.

The First Amendment does not say that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of religion. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Whether "respecting" means honoring or concerning, the clause means that Congress shall make no law on that subject. The ban is not just on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact that allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be unconstitutional. Again…the Blunt Amendment constitutionally fails on these grounds.

An overlooked aspect of the free exercise clause which is a blind spot among Republicans, and especially Rick Santorum…the lawyer who should know better, is that it looks back to the establishment clause for its definition of "religion." The establishment clause says that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of "religion," while the free exercise clause says that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise "thereof." Logically, the word "thereof" must have the same content as the object to which it refers. Accordingly, what counts as "religion" for one clause must count as "religion" for the other.

The free exercise clause makes no sense unless the word "religion" is read to encompass more than a church, denomination, or sect. The state abridges free exercise when it interferes with only small parts of an individual's religious practice. The state, for example, abridges free exercise when it tells students they cannot pray during school, even if it allows them complete freedom to practice all other aspects of their faith. Similarly, the state cannot tell a church it must provide contraception coverage even if the church is otherwise left free to use its property as it wishes. The Obama Compromise deals with this. Private prayer and contraception are protected by the free exercise clause despite the fact that neither of these practices constitutes religions in and of themselves.

If prayer and contraception count as "religion" for the purposes of the free exercise clause, they must also count as "religion" for the purposes of the establishment clause. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a student she cannot pray, so too does it establish religion when it requires prayer to be said in the schools. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a church it must provide contraception coverage, so too does it establish religion when it makes a law that would deny contraception coverage to people based on a religious exemption to those outside the realm of the church at public expense. The state does not cross the line to establishment only when it goes to the trouble and expense of setting up a state church; it crosses that line when it sets up any religious practice that constitutes "religion" for the purposes of free exercise. To the extent that Republicans want to read the "thereof" in the free exercise clause broadly, they must also accept a broad reading of "religion" in the establishment clause.
 

ChimueloJones

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
Location
Southcentral Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Proclamming it an "amendment" instead of a rider to a bill gives it the illusion of more importance than just a add-on amendment to a highway funding bill.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,433
Reaction score
40,645
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That logic does not work very well. If the Blunt amendment is unconstitutional then what of other religious exemptions such as those to the draft, SS or other execptions granted for only specific religions? The Blunt amendment failed because it was thought to be overly broad, not on establishment grounds. One cannot simply say I want to opt out of SS, they must cite membership in a "state approved" religious sect to do so, which negates your argument.
 

Adagio

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
353
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"That logic does not work very well. If the Blunt amendment is unconstitutional then what of other religious exemptions such as those to the draft, SS or other execptions granted for only specific religions? "

First off there is no draft. And when there was, it was over concientious objections to fighting in wars. Not over being taxed for something. There is no equivalency with SS. Social Security is not a religion. The Blunt Amendment is unconstitutional because it establishes religion. If you are going to fight a bill on religious grounds, then you're expecting congress to rule in your favor on religious grounds. To do so establishes religion. We don't legislate religion in this country.

You can't very well argue that contraception violates your religious practice without admitting that you're claiming that contracetpion is a religion. The Amendment reads; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Thereof what?? Religion of course. Obviously the second clause must refer BACK to the first to get it's meaning. If contraception is meant to serve as religion for the purpose of free exercise then it must logically and grammatically serve as religion for the purpose of establishment at the same time. To accept the argument that contraception violates free exercise is to accept contraception as religion and we cannot make any laws respecting an establishment of religion.
 
Top Bottom