An AP article from the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/palin-blurs-line-between_n_133863.html

/Sigh As if listening to her speak was not evidence enough?

While I see the problem if she becomes Vice-President in going to religious meetings on the taxpayer's dime, is there something in Alaska's constitution that says this is a no-no?

I know that the reason this was brought up, is because past behavior can be indices of future tendancies. I was wondering if there was any real Church/state seperation that was violated? Are governors bound by the Federal Constitution?

Are governors bound by the Federal Constitution?


Apparently in Alaska they can do whatever the fuck they want.

"vowing from the pulpit to do her part to implement God's will from the governor's office"

This is the problem...she is there to implement the will of the people, not "god"...as if she would have a clue what god's will even is.

Palin and her family billed the state $3,022 for the cost of attending Christian gatherings exclusively, including visits to the Assembly of God here and to the congregation they attend in Juneau, according to expense reports reviewed by the AP.

I would think this violates some state regulations.

Unless I am mistaken, state Constitutions and legislation are not to violate the Federal Constitution and federal law; otherwise, why would state cases go before the Supreme Court when arguing separation of church and state cases?

I think I remember some people saying they were doing the will of god...hmmmm....who was it?... Oh yeah there's this guy who is from Saudi Arabia his father owned this really big construction company...didn't he start out with the same "gods will" stuff?

Reserved Powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) are those that are not explicitly granted to the Federal Government.

Due to the Supremacy Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause), all federal law supersedes state and local laws.

And yes, of course governors are bound by the United States Constitution...

Let's remember what the 'separation of church and state' actually is. It is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution. The phrase itself has been codified in US Supreme Court rulings since the Constitution has been drafted.

In the Constitution, we have the Establishment Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause), which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The second part of the 'separation' is found in the Free Exercise Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_exercise_clause), which states that "[Congress] shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion."

Lemon v. Kurtzman is the benchmark for reviewing cases dealing with the Establishment Clause. From this case comes the 'Lemon Test,' which is used to determine whether or not something is in violation of the Establishment Clause. The test asks three questions:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose.
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion
3. The government's action must not result in "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Due to the use of public funds for these trips, Gov. Palin is clearly in violation of benchmark #2 and #3. This means that she is in violation of the Establishment Clause, and her actions are thus unconstitutional.


...


Then let's remember that Bush still has a 25% approval rating, and no one fucking reads books anymore so trivial stuff like the US Constitution isn't really all that important.

The US what?

Ok, that makes sense to me. Thanks for clairifying it.

Edit: So a judge would have to rule on this? Also, insofar as the term Congress, is this interchangable with Governor?

For a long time, the Court did not apply the Bill of Rights (Where the Establishment Clause is found) to state and local governments.

A process of incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine), however, has seen all the protections of the Bill of Rights extended beyond the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment has a Due Process Clause which is very similar to that found in the Fifth Amendment, but is directed towards the states. It took a dozen Supreme Court cases, however, for them to acknowledge that under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights was indeed enforceable against state and local government. (Which really makes no sense if you consider the original intent of the Fourteenth.)


For purposes of this discussion, the Establishment Clause was incorporated in Everson v. Board of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education).

Ok, that makes sense to me. Thanks for clairifying it.

Edit: So a judge would have to rule on this? Also, insofar as the term Congress, is this interchangable with Governor?


I think there are probably substantial precedents already set, from cases heard and decided on, to be able to make fairly clear statements regarding whether or not she was violating the principle.

While it's fine that statements can be made, why isn't she prosecuted?
If someone breaks the law, and isn't tried, it emboldens the next person to do that, and more.

You would need someone to sue her at a district level. Eventually, if you were lucky, it'd work it's way up through the Court of Appeals, the Alaskan Supreme Court, and to the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure if the Supreme Court would even hear this though because it's such a blatantly unconstitutional use of public funds.

The Court also ruled that you could not discriminate against voters based on race. What did the states do? Implement poll taxes, literacy tests, and other Jim Crow bullshit.

The point being that while the Court may make rulings, people choose to misinterpret them, try to find loopholes, or just flat out ignore them. The US Supreme Court isn't a police force. It does not have time to go over every single violation, as obvious as they may be.

What this episode can do, however, is show well-informed voters what is going on.

I'm flat out telling you that what she is doing is unconstitutional. This is simply fact.

If it is important to you that your Vice-Presidential candidate acts in accordance with the laws of our nation, then I would suggest not voting to put this person into office. If it's a transgression that you can overlook, then go for it, but don't be surprised with what you get.

Discussing the downward spiral of the McCain-Palin ticket at work, one of our comedic workers noted that only McCain would think to dig a foxhole for protection while standing on a sinking ship.

I thought that summed up the Palin selection quite nicely.