Really, Alabama? Bill requiring Prayer in public school passed.

[Salted Grump]

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/...public-school-

So, apparently Alabama has forgotten what the Constitution says about the separation of Church and State.

This bill, sponsored by (surprise! It's a republican) Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, requires that every teacher spend the first 15 minutes of class each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.

(To be specific, this prayer.)

http://forbes.house.gov/prayercaucus...ncongress.aspx

[crashhelmet]

You know... How does our Congress get away with the daily prayer?

[HYHYBT]

With vote tampering (of a sort) thrown in to top it off, no less.

You know... How does our Congress get away with the daily prayer?

There are other official explanations given, but I believe it amounts to tradition, lack of challenges by those actually affected, and the courts preferring not to interfere with other branches' internal workings more than necessary. (And they probably have something similar themselves.)

[AccountingDrone]

I think if I had a kid in the school system there I would do a little passive resistance and have my kid do something like very visibly put on some headphones and crank some podcast on education until the prayertime was over. And give them a note stating that they were practicing their civil liberty to their own religious freedom to not listen to their prayertime. See how long it took them to end up in the office so I could then sue the fuck out of the system. I would be willing to bet that the ACLU and that athiest group would be interested.

[otakuneko]

It'll survive only until challenged, and then it'll get shot down so fast, they won't even have time to make opening arguments.

There oughta be some sort of penalty for writing and voting for such blatantly unconstitutional legislation.

[Rapscallion]

There oughta be some sort of penalty for writing and voting for such blatantly unconstitutional legislation.

There is - at the ballot box the next time they're up for re-election.

Surprisingly, many make it through despite this.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

There is - at the ballot box the next time they're up for re-election.

Surprisingly, many make it through despite this.

Rapscallion

Eliminate the R or D next to people's names on the ballot box and it'd be interesting to see what happens. Suddenly, the lazy bastards who don't follow politics but still vote on party lines will be screwed.

[TheHuckster]

Eliminate the R or D next to people's names on the ballot box and it'd be interesting to see what happens. Suddenly, the lazy bastards who don't follow politics but still vote on party lines will be screwed.

Tongue in cheek or not, I would support this 100%.

[Rapscallion]

I like the idea. I dislike the concept of so few independent candidates, and I hate the party system (though I'm at a loss to come up with something better), but this would make people remember who they are voting for instead of the parties, and make them think more than they do.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Tongue in cheek or not, I would support this 100%.

I'd be 100% on board with eliminating party affiliation from the ballots, too.

If people can't be arsed enough to figure out who the hell they should vote for, that's their problem.

[s_stabeler]

technically, the founders didn't want parties at all- they wanted each senator to represent the views of THEIR STATE and each representative to represent the views of THEIR DISTRICT- legislation would only pass if enough people thought it a good idea. Presidents had NO power to force an agenda through at all- indeed, the president was more or less supposed to be there to be in charge of day-do-day government, not decide "OK, we want this, this and this legislation passed"

so my system- abolish parties. Return Congress to what it was before- a chamber where people voted according to what their constituents thought- as for the presidential election - ban campaign contributions entirely. Give all candidates an equal amount of money (say, $1 million) and let them spend it however, as long as it is on their campaign, and not illegal.

that ought to at the very least make congressmen and senators actually listen, and, with the President's power back to the level it is supposed to be, actually reduces the importance of the Presidential election. ( because the vote that would be important is the vote for Representative and Senator)

[wolfie]

Don't forget that the Veep was originally supposed to be the runner-up on the Presidential ballot.

As it stands now, a large proportion of the population will vote for a chimpanzee if it's got the appropriate letter following its name. I won't say that it HAS happened - judging from the performance of some elected representatives, a chimp would be an improvement.

[s_stabeler]

That's because there used to be three or four candidates for president ( at the Electoral College, anyway), and the runner-up was usually due to horsetrading at the Electoral College- very few Presidents had a majority in the Electoral College when there were more than 2 candidates. Ergo, there was usually a LOT of horsetrading between candidates to assemble a majority. Therefore, the runner-up was usually legitimately the next best person for the job- hence, give them the position next in line to take over.

[Kheldarson]

That's because there used to be three or four candidates for president ( at the Electoral College, anyway), and the runner-up was usually due to horsetrading at the Electoral College- very few Presidents had a majority in the Electoral College when there were more than 2 candidates. Ergo, there was usually a LOT of horsetrading between candidates to assemble a majority. Therefore, the runner-up was usually legitimately the next best person for the job- hence, give them the position next in line to take over.

But that's also why the rules got changed: it could end up dragging out the election.

[s_stabeler]

It can still be improved. (make it Single Transferable Vote instead- there, you rank candidates in order of preference. Then, if you first-preference candidate gets eliminated, your vote goes to your second preference, and so on, until somebody is elected who 50% or more of the electorate prefer to the others remaining.) THAT would allow the VP to be the second-place candidate as well, while not having the faults of the existing system. And I'd still get rid of political parties.