I live in an apartment. I'm WAY below the poverty line. I'm a one-income family with a disabled wife and a child. I'm also disabled so my options are extremely limited.

Now, with all of this being said: I think the voters for THE EXECUTIVE office should be limited to land owners (not on loan but you actually own that land), business OWNERS (CEO's and officers not included, they must own the business), military (currently serving or have served in any branch, Reserves and National Guard included), or all of the above.

House and Senate may still be voted on by anyone. The President does way too much that effects those group of people that I just listed than it does for any of us none-business, none-land owning, none-military people do. The current Administration, I think, is trying to ruin those people I just mentioned. The previous tried less, but still tried.

The #1 thing to do: DO AWAY WITH THE INCOME TAX. Veto the IRS. Why in the world should the Forgotten Man be taxed by this government for their labors? Our Founders didn't intend it, and we did fine without it prior to the early 20th century. Maybe this will force this government to spend within its' means.

Let's just hope they don't go postal like Obama's going on our country.

Read the Constitution - Article VI, Section 3 and then the First Amendment.

Now, by these clergy praying in the name of Christ is not making any law. They are people of a spiritual profession, which by no means is descriminating - I'm sure of a Rabi or Iman or anyone else of any other religious belief wished to be a chaplain, the state would either have to allow them, or they'd be descriminating.

Now, if you let any other spiritual leader of any other religion practice as a Chaplain, will you deny them the use of, say, their prophets (ie Mohommad or, in Glenn's case, Joseph Smith), or use of their sacred texts (the Book of Mormon or the Koran)?

The state isn't forcing these clergy to be Christian, nor has it made any law stating that in order to be state clergy, you must be a Christian. What it DOES do, is prohibit clergy hired by the state to practice their faith, thereby forcing a law which inhibits spiritual practice, which is indeed against the Constitution.

So, all of you with a liberal mindset of freedom FROM religion instead of freedom OF religion, please read the Constitution.

Article VI, Section 3 and then the First Amendment.

Now, by these clergy praying in the name of Christ is not making any law. They are people of a spiritual profession, which by no means is descriminating - I'm sure of a Rabi or Iman or anyone else of any other religious belief wished to be a chaplain, the state would either have to allow them, or they'd be descriminating.

Now, if you let any other spiritual leader of any other religion practice as a Chaplain, will you deny them the use of, say, their prophets (ie Mohommad or, in Glenn's case, Joseph Smith), or use of their sacred texts (the Book of Mormon or the Koran)?

The state isn't forcing these clergy to be Christian, nor has it made any law stating that in order to be state clergy, you must be a Christian. What it DOES do, is prohibit clergy hired by the state to practice their faith, thereby forcing a law which inhibits spiritual practice, which is indeed against the Constitution.

So, yes, please read the Constitution again. Read, and understand it this time.

Article VI, Section 3 and then the First Amendment.

Now, by these clergy praying in the name of Christ is not making any law. They are people of a spiritual profession, which by no means is descriminating - I'm sure of a Rabi or Iman or anyone else of any other religious belief wished to be a chaplain, the state would either have to allow them, or they'd be descriminating.

Now, if you let any other spiritual leader of any other religion practice as a Chaplain, will you deny them the use of, say, their prophets (ie Mohommad or, in Glenn's case, Joseph Smith), or use of their sacred texts (the Book of Mormon or the Koran)?

The state isn't forcing these clergy to be Christian, nor has it made any law stating that in order to be state clergy, you must be a Christian. What it DOES do, is prohibit clergy hired by the state to practice their faith, thereby forcing a law which inhibits spiritual practice, which is indeed against the Constitution.

So, yes, please read the Constitution again. Read, and understand it this time.

Please read my post. Allowing these clergy to practice their own faith is not in violation of the Constition. If a Rabi or Iman or Mormon were denied employment by the state based on their faith, this would be a violation of the Constitution.

By allowing CHRISTIAN clergy to pray IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST is not making a law based on religious favoritism. It is also not requiring a religious leader who wishes to be a chaplain the employment based on their faith. Both would be in violation of the Constitution.

However, by taking the way the right for a clergy to pray based on their faith, such as saying they cannot pray to Christ since they are Christian, is making a law descriminating against that practice, which is a violation of the Constitution.

I'm a Virginian. My hometown is the home of the father of our Constitution, James Madison (which is Orange). This is a horrible discrace.

Article VI, Section 3 and then the First Amendment.

Now, by these clergy praying in the name of Christ is not making any law. They are people of a spiritual profession, which by no means is descriminating - I'm sure of a Rabi or Iman or anyone else of any other religious belief wished to be a chaplain, the state would either have to allow them, or they'd be descriminating.

Now, if you let any other spiritual leader of any other religion practice as a Chaplain, will you deny them the use of, say, their prophets (ie Mohommad or, in Glenn's case, Joseph Smith), or use of their sacred texts (the Book of Mormon or the Koran)?

The state isn't forcing these clergy to be Christian, nor has it made any law stating that in order to be state clergy, you must be a Christian. What it DOES do, is prohibit clergy hired by the state to practice their faith, thereby forcing a law which inhibits spiritual practice, which is indeed against the Constitution.

So, yes, please read the Constitution again. Read, and understand it this time.