Politics and the Constitution

   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.

   Despite the clear language of the Constitution, political candidates regularly warn that their opponents will unilaterally abolish portions of the American founding document, as if it could be easily done by executive fiat.
   No, it can't. That only happens in dictatorships. And unless America becomes a dictatorship, it can never happen.
   Even so, candidates and groups keep sounding an alarm that it might, as a way of furthering their own agenda at the expense of those who may disagree.
   For example, a group calling itself the Faith and Freedom Coalition charges that Hillary Clinton, if elected President, "will use government force to make you reject your Christian faith." As evidence, the group quotes part of a speech by Clinton in April 2015 in which she reportedly said, "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed."
   However, there was no context to the quote, which dealt with the treatment of women and their reproductive rights, among other legal rights. Yet fundamentalists immediately extended that statement to mean Clinton was calling for Christians to abandon their religious beliefs. Fact checkers soon pointed out the fallacy. Yet once made to the base of True Believers, no amount of factual  evidence will change their minds.
   In addition to the false connection, another reality is that the Constitution specifically prohibits an official state-sponsored religion as well as banning any restrictions on the free exercise of religion.
   To a large extent, the First Amendment was written to prevent a situation that was common in Great Britain at the time, which had a state-sponsored church (Episcopalian), and only members of that church could serve in government offices or attend the major universities in England.
   As for the allegation that a Clinton Administration would force Christians to abandon their faith, what would take its place? That would mean overturning the First Amendment. In addition, that would mean cancelling Article VI of the Constitution itself, which says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
   And if Christianity is prohibited, what of the other spiritual practices common in America? Which one would replace Christianity: Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hindu, Wicca, Druidry, Native American tribal practices, or would Atheist, or Agnostic, or None of the Above, be among the "acceptable" choices? Or if Christianity be mandated for all, which of the many variations would be allowed?
   The reality is that no such action is possible, unless the Constitution be suspended.
   So any suggestion that such a move would be attempted is fear-mongering. Nowhere in the Constitution is Christianity mentioned. In fact, the only times religion is mentioned at all is to prohibit restrictions or preferences of any kind. It's called the separation of church and state.
   But if, by some remote chance, a politician were to succeed in an attempt to establish an official church or to limit the free exercise of any other religion, the move would immediately crash into Constitutional prohibitions. Unless that politician succeeded in suspending the Constitution.
   Likewise, some candidates insist that an opponent would trash the Second Amendment, which deals with gun control. Any such attempt to do that would also clash with Constitutional rights as well as Supreme Court rulings.
   The United States Constitution established three distinct, separate and equal branches of government: Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court. If one person were to attempt to control all three, then America would no longer be what it has been for more than two centuries.
   Instead, it would be a dictatorship. So when a candidate loudly proclaims what that person would do as President, the claim is based on a premise that the Executive Branch is the sole repository of all power in these United States.
   'Tain't so.