Anibal Acevedo Vila, Former Governor of Puerto Rico

Sometimes how the United States Government works may seem a little cumbersome to those of you who live in the fifty states. But if you think some processes are a bit fuzzy on the mainland, they’re even more muddled for disputes between the United States and it’s commonwealths and territories who lack full representation in Congress and the same rights and privileges as the states.

This week, in the Federal Court for the District of Puerto Rico, the matter of United States of America v. Anibal Acevedo Vila, et als, takes center stage. Acevedo Vila is the former Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who served from 2004 until 2008.

The Case
Anibal Acevedo Vila was the Governor of Puerto Rico from 2004 to 2008, and was the Resident Commissioner from 2000 to 2004.  The Resident Commissioner is the elected official that represents the interests of Puerto Rico in the United States Congress.  For the last three years of his Gubernatorial term, he was the target of a Federal Investigation that included a review of his college transcripts, and the Law Review articles that he wrote.

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States…” were the words that President Obama planned to say on January 20th before Chief Justice John Roberts botched the presidential oath of office and Mr. Obama repeated his mistake.  Assuming no darker motives—that Mr. Roberts was not deliberately creating a validation for a future ruling that Mr. Obama is not America’s president—his public snafu with Mr. Obama might at least foreshadow a period of little cooperation, perhaps even blatant counteraction, between an economically interventionist Mr. Obama and a still strict-constructionist Supreme Court.

1978, the last time America saw a Democratic majority in Congress as great as it is now—nearly 60%—coincided with the first term of President Carter—also a Democrat.  The 96th Congress that convened until 1980 was marked by broad productivity, passing more laws than the two Congress’ that preceded it.  If the high output of bills was due to Democratic control of the legislature and the White House, then the current—111th—Congress ought to be the most productive in a long time.  Nonetheless, the current federal judiciary remains much more conservative than that of 1978, suggesting that any productive period in Congress will likely be met with constitutionality rulings in the Supreme Court.

This is the first part of a multi-part series on the issue of separation of church and state. With this being the holiday season, it just seemed appropriate to bring this issue up here on this blog considering this is the primary time of the year that we start hearing all the arguments for and against “separation of church and state.” Please keep in mind, while this discussion will attempt to remain as non-partisan and not promoting any single religion, the fact is the topic of this discussion is religion and it might appear there may be some encroachment on the non-partisanship promise of this blog. Please be rest assured, that is not the intent here.

The purpose of this discussion is to look at the historical context from which this idea was born and what it has meant to this country and religion over the past two centuries. The first place to start is the United States Constitution - in particular - the First Amendment as it relates to religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

This is also known as “The Establishment Clause.”  The interpretation of this particular line of the First Amendment has caused quite a problem over the last 50 years in the United States.  Secular organizations have used this language to have all forms of religion removed from any public establishment including schools, government buildings, court houses, etc. at all levels of government (local, county, state, and federal).  Their premise is that the First Amendment requires an absolute separation of church and state.  But, there is absolutely no mention of this particular phrase in the entire U.S. Constitution.  So - where did this come about?

A Presidential Pardon Cover Letter

The new round of White House pardons were Bush’s first since March and come less than two months before he will end his presidency. The crimes committed by those on the list also include offenses involving hazardous waste, food stamps and the theft of government property.

Bush has been relatively stingy in handing out such reprieves. Including these actions, he has granted 171 pardons and eight commutations in nearly eight years. That’s less than half as many as Presidents Clinton or Reagan issued during their 8-year tenures in office.

Great Seal of the State of California

With California’s Proposition 8 now a part of California’s constitution, the next step in the battle over same-sex marriage will likely turn to the courts. With that in mind, it’s important to look at where the issue of same-sex marriage might be headed in the courts to understand the governmental processes at work as this very high-profile issue takes national center-stage, especially now with Barack Obama in the White House and the House and Senate controlled by the Democrats.

Background

The campaign for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the United States is a young one, but very reflective of modern society in the United States and the culture war that exists between liberal and traditional or conservative values. Briefly, back in 2000, California voters passed by a large majority an amendment to the California Family Code (CFC) that formally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court–in a landmark ruling that made international headlines–decided that laws prohibiting gay marriage were unconstitutional, thus opening the door for gay men and women to legally marry for the first time in the United States. This ruling drew immediate attacks from those opposed to gay marriage and resulted in an attempt to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution that would restrict marriage in all states to be between a man and a woman. The issue polarized America and became a major campaign issue in the 2004 election cycle. George Bush used the same-sex marriage issue to eek out a narrow re-election to the Presidency over John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts.