Congress may actually pass an economic stimulus bill this week, which is good news for the short-term needs of the country. There is no question the economy is tottering, and could easily tip over from recession to depression, so a bill that focuses on saving jobs and creating jobs is desperately needed. The good news is that the bill will definitely help achieve some of those aims. The bad news is that it will lay a crushing debt burden on taxpayers for the future, which can only be addressed if government becomes far more efficient in the use of tax dollars than it has in the past. That could very well force, down the road, what many of us have wanted for years, a smaller, more efficient government. But somehow, that doesn't seem likely. Because Congress hasn't figured out that the model for government is, and should be, changing. And the best example is the stimulus package. Despite billions of dollars in cuts, it still contains way too much pork. And some of the cuts (to make way for that pork) seem to make no sense, such as dropping $40 billion to help keep schools from having to fire teachers. That's counter-productive. The bill is supposed to save or create jobs, not leave them threatened. Both sides of the aisle bear the blame. The Democratic leadership rolled over on way too many pet projects among its members, losing sight of the long-term goal of the bill. And Republicans kept insisting on sticking to the same failed policies of the past, and playing the same old games where personal and party political power carried more weight than the needs of the nation. One GOP leader actually admitted his goal for the bill, and the amendments he introduced, were designed to divide the Democrats and make them look bad. So much for caring about the people of this country. Both parties should be ashamed. It is time for Congress to look up from its myopic and petty party power games, and its proclivity for pork, and look at the desperate state of the nation, focusing solely on programs that stand a good chance of meeting the goal of keeping people working. Making things work should be a bipartisan issue. This bill should be about America, not the Republican or Democratic parties. -- Kelly Everitt

Let him say, 'So help me God'

Posted Wednesday, January 7, 2009, at 9:49 AM

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, requires the President of the United States, upon assuming office, to take the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Two key elements of that oath are not part of the Constitution.

But every since George Washington put his hand on his family Bible, to show his commitment to that oath, and added the words, "So help me, God," those two elements have been an integral part of the tradition of the swearing-in ceremony.

In fact, the selection of the Bible itself, be it a family heirloom of the president or a Bible with historic significance (such as the one used by Washington or Lincoln), is a major decision each incoming president makes for his inauguration.

Now, an atheist group has filed a lawsuit in federal court to block Obama from saying, "So help me, God." And that's ridiculous.

The Constitution only prohibits the government from creating or endorsing a state religion. It does not prevent any member of the government from being religious, or expressing his religious beliefs (it fact, such expression is protected by the Constitution).

If Obama chooses to use those words, and place his hand on a Bible when he takes his oath, he should be allowed to do so (he will). And if any court rules he can't, then I suggest they have a U.S. Marshall standing by to arrest him when he does so.

It is more than mere tradition. It is appropriate. For any president who is religious at all, it demonstrates how seriously they take the oath.

Comments

View 1 comment

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Kelly, I agree! Saying an oath is always to God in my opinion but to speak the words outloud, does express the seriousness of that oath. Do we not still swear on a bible in court? Or has that been omitted? I'll have to look at that. Anyways, it is crazy for some group to threaten to try and have it blocked. Let see, don't we still have freedom of speech? It is because of that freedom that these people are given the right to trash all the beliefs of others. They got to tell the world that there is no God, no Jesus, no angels, no heaven and no hell. They were given the right to tell the world that 90% (give or take) of this nation are unresaonable idiots because they believe in God. Now, they want to take that freedom of speech,that they so loudly proclaimed in their favor, away from the President?

-- Posted by kimkovac on Sun, Jan 11, 2009, at 8:24 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register