The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

EXPLINATION:


The Constitution prohibits interference with the free exercise of religion (government can't tell you what religion to practice) and also prohibits the "establishment" of any religion, which means more or less the same thing. The Government may not say you must belong to "the Church of America" the way people had to belong to the Church of England at one time. These two rules have been called by some (including some of the justices on the Supreme Court) "the separation of church and state." However, the Constitution does not prohibit the state from embracing general religious ideas, like "in God we trust." The concept that "the state" may have no religious thought at all is not a firm legal rule, although some argue that it is. That's the best legal explanation I can give you without getting too technical.Separation of Church and State" is a way to explain the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. And no where in the First Amendment does it state anything about "Freedom FROM Religion". It says "Freedom OF Religion".
Both of these examples are perfectly legal. And, in fact, the Establishment Clause prevents the government from establishing a state church, but not from publicly acknowledging a God (or even Gods). Separation of Church and State does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
And the reason the founding father wanted the separation of state and Church ..Is the Vatican ..see for a long time the Roman Catholic Church was and still is a Nation ..and in Europe the 2 main churches Were the Catholic Church and the Church of England And both ruled inside the governments of Europe ..Check the Spanish Inquisition , Napoleonic wars,Henry VIII. i wish i had more time to talk about this since this is my favorite topic to discuss Separation of Church and State Also check our Saudi Arabia and Mid east for more examples why i love this part of the Constitution..

Read more »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

1 comment

Tags: ARTICLE II, sec. I

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.




EXPLINATION:


At issue in the Balikatan Case was the constitutionaly of the conduct of the joint training exercise, reffered to as Balikatan 02-01, of Us and the Philippine soldiers in the mindanao. Petitioners asked the Supreme Courtto prohibit the excerciseon the ground taht the excercise is not sanctioned by any treaty and is therefore unconstitutional. Undet the Terms of Reference ("TOR") entered into on Febuary 11, 2002 by the Philippines and the United States,"The Exercise is a mutual counter-terrosism advising, assisting and training excercise relative to philippine efforts against the ASG, [Abu SAyaf Group], and well be conductedon hte island Baasilan" and "in MAlagutay and the Zamboanga area." The TOR provied that "US exercise prticipants shall not engage in combat without prejudice to thier right of self defense." Petitioners claimed that "Balikatan 02-01'is actually a war principally conducted by the UNited States government [against ASG] and that the provision on self-defense serves only as camouflage to conceal the true nature of the excercise."

The Supreme Cuort ruled that the following "premises leave no doubt that US forces are probihitedfrom engaging in an offensive war on Philippine territory": (a) neither the MDT [Mutual Defense Treaty] nor the VFA [Visiting Forces Agreement between the Philippines and the US] allow foriegn troops to engage in offensive war on Philippine Territory,"The military presece in the country, or of foriegn influencein general" and "foriegn troops are allowed entry into the Philippines only by way of direct exception," such exception being when the foriegn troops allowed in the philippines "under a treaty," and "our constitution authorizes the nollification of a treaty,not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also when its run counter to act an Congress."

But the Court dismissed the petition becuse the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts" and the petition raised "basically a question of fact," Wether American troops were "actively engaged in combat alongside Filipino soldiers under the guise of and alleged training and assistance excercise."

Read more »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

0 Comments

Tags: ARTICLE II, Sec II