[Double Tap]

"The sign back here which says `Get religion out of government,' can be imposed on the whole country. I have no problem with that philosophy being adopted democratically. If the gentleman holding the sign would persuade all of you of that, then we could eliminate `under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be democratically done," said Scalia.

That is a curious thing for an "Original Intent" jurist to say. I wonder what other things he thinks could be done "democratically"? If the majority of the people in this country convinced their reps and senators to ban firearms ownership, would that pass muster with him?

[Notwithstanding]

The constitution forbids only establishment - which is far far different than the constitutionally permissible government involvement with or promotion of religion.

Since it is permissible, such promotion or involvement can be legislatively required or prohibited.

(Unlike a constitutional freedom or right - such as to bear arms - which cannot be suppressed via legislative act)

[rface]

I think Scalia is saying that if you want to get rid of "God" in the government, don't try to do it under the guise of a "Separation of Church and State" clause (since there is no such clause) - do it the way the system allows you to do it - at the ballot box.

Scalia would say, "If you want to prevent Christmas Displays on your town square, don't dis-allow it on Constitutional Grounds - pass a law that prevents it by reason of democratic decree.

my humble opinion as a constitutional legal layman

[Askel5]

I wonder what other things he thinks could be done "democratically"?

HEAR HEAR!!

I'm tired of truth derived by majority rule and the "Democratization" of other nations by Acts of Congress upon the close of Clean Hands moral wars.