You are assuming things. Just where the hell did you get that idea?? I admire and respect Christie (from what I've read about him) simply because he has his own convictions and is unbending unless he believes the others are right. Christie is by far the most decent Republican I've read about so far, and is not afraid to go against his party's stance if he doesn't believe they're right. He also points out Obama's faults for what they are in the most objective manner I've read so far.
How the hell did you assume that I want Christie to cave in to Dems?? no I don't. He has his own views and that's fine by me. But as far as Republicans go, he seems to be the most reachable to Democrats.
Best of all, this guy has very little vested interests riding on him (at the moment). That's exactly why I admire him.
Vested interest? He's running for reelection with the popular Corey Booker as a possibile opponent in a blue state. I'd say he has a vested interest in his next election.
QUOTE
Christie actually cares about his state's future, which is something that is a rare trait in any governor in the US today. Many of them use their governorship as a stepping stone for possible presidential runs. Christie has actually made an effort to, ya know, govern. For that, he deserves commendation.
(Then, poor states like us here in Georgia have frickin' criminals as their governors. Nathan Deal ought to be in jail for real estate fraud right now, but for whatever reason they decided not to pursue the charges.)
In regards to the Jefferson letters versus the Constitution, keep in mind who they were rebelling against. England had a nationalized church with the king as the head of the church body as well as the monarch. If you weren't the "proper" religion during the Tudor period, for example, you were beheaded, and that sort of governmental power over religion is exactly the type of thing they wanted to avoid in their new country. The only way to do that? Create a wall between politics and religion.
James is right on their origin and the history of that even, I think, suggests that it wasn't really intended as a guiding legal principle. The fact that it took nearly 150 years for it became a meaningful part of case law (I think there was one case in the 1880's that mentioned in passing, but Everson v. Board of Education (1947) was where it began meaning anything), supports that. The history behind the Amendment also suggests the modern interpretation is not what they had in mind (and that would have been done at the backdrop of the history you mention).
Reaslitically, though, the phrase has been constantly invoked in case law since the 1940's and I doubt it will suddenly be dropped. Besides, it more a political talking point than anything. It means less legally than people think it does.
In current case law, it amounts to the fact that "strict scrutiny" will be the legal test under that clause. Even if the Supreme Court started dropping it, I cannot imagine them suddenly abandoning that as the test. Though cases like Wickard v. Fillmore (replacing strict scrunity for rational basis under the commerce clause), Casey v. Planned Parenthood (where they just kinda made up the undue burden test for abortion, replacing strict scrutiny) and Roper v. Simmons ("evoling standards of deceny (whatever the hell that means) test for Cruel and Unusual Punishment) indicate that it would not be unpressedented if they did.
All that I imagine would "change" is how regioursly they applied the test, which really, isn't consistent anyway, so it wouldn't change much from a practical matter.
For example, take the Ten Commandments case from the early 2000's. There were two of them. One said yes, the other said no. They were decided roughly at the same time by the same nine justices (Breyer was of the ones who switched). The facts between the two were very different, but it demostrates the lack of clear answer on the same religous symbol. There was also Allgeny, where a Christmas display was not okay and in the same opinion a Jewish one was. If here weren't dead, it would be an interesting question for Jusice Burger.
Even under current case law, it's not a "wall" and the only solid thing about it is...the test they use and that what you can do except in the most obvious of cases comes down to it depends.
As a borderline Libertarian (I refuse to call myself one as long as Ron Paul is at the helm), I cannot get worked up over governments being unable to erect Christmas displays. However, I remain cynical about those constantly espose "seperation of church and state" because it's usually not...esposed consistently across all religions...and those same people don't seem as gunho in their support of the rest of the Amendment (Free Exercise (see HHS contraception mandate) and Free Speech (Boston and Chicago's response to Chick Fil-A).
QUOTE
I guess what I want to say is if this is what truly people believe, I am sad to say they are going to be disappointed. If this was just a joke by Jamie Foxx, this is a terrible joke to make. Some people thought I was crazy when I said some people view Obama as a God, well here is your proof. He is nothing more than a man. He is not going to wave his hand and make the whole country better over night. Doesn't work like that.
I can't remember the last time, if ever, I cared about what Jamie Foxx thought. Besides, it's not like it's a new phenomenon, which I thought was part of the point of Foxx's joke.
