Separation of Church and State May God Bless the rest of us?

[loseyourname]

Jesus, Logic and SOS. No matter what decision any leader makes, he is being informed by some system of ethics. Whether that system is religious or secular, it is going to be a system that is not universally adopted by all American citizens. Criticizing Bush for making policy decisions based on his Christian ethics is no different from criticizing an atheist president for making policy decisions based on secular humanism. Both systems exclude the opinions of those who do not adhere to it. Russ has made it more than explicit that the constitution does not proscribe this (in fact, it cannot proscribe this unless it proscribes all action by elected officials).

 

[russ_watters]

Criticizing Bush for making policy decisions based on his Christian ethics is no different from criticizing an atheist president for making policy decisions based on secular humanism...(in fact, it cannot proscribe this unless it proscribes all action by elected officials).

Well, theoretically it could be a specifically athiest government, utterly devoid of religious ideas, right?? How you would get that from the words of the founders of the US, though, I dunno...

 

[SOS2008]

Okay guys. There's no problem in our country. There is no mixing of religion and politics in inappropriate ways. Bush and administration have not taken sides of any special interest groups that just so happen to be religious, specifically Christian. Christian votes didn't help Bush to be reelected. There is no increase of fundamentalism, and these fundamentalists don't have any agenda. We don't need to worry, and anyone who questions it is just being ridiculous. Let's all vote for Frist in 2008. I'm sure the path where all this is leading will work out just fine, and we will live happily ever after in the Christian Republic of the United States.

 

[kat]

The type of governing body; that SOS seems to think is his inherent right...godless...has also been responsible for the most deaths of any other type of governing bodies in the world.
You seem to be of the mind that in a country where the overwhelming population professes to be Christian..that a president shouldn't have Christian votes helping him to be in office...what you're spouting is nonsense.

 

[russ_watters]

SOS, if you think there's a problem with too much religion in the US, fine (well, not fine - kat's point is a problem for that position), but that's not the same as separation of church and state.

I've given you the criterea by which you can easily prove a separation of church and state problem: find me a law that breaks one of those Constitutionality tests.

 

[Curious3141]

find me a law that breaks one of those Constitutionality tests.

Don't you think that the granting of tax exempt status to religious organisations (like churches) qualifies as a violation of separation ?

 

[russ_watters]

Don't you think that the granting of tax exempt status to religious organisations (like churches) qualifies as a violation of separation ?

Churches don't get tax exept status because they are churches, they get tax exempt status because they are non-profit. And that applies to all churches of all kinds and all other non-profit organizations.

If they start doing things that violate the rules for non-profit organizations, then they lose that status - see last-years' issue with several churches and the NAACP being too political. They are under investigation by the IRS to review their tax exempt status.

edit: that's the Lemon test. It passes, though the tricky part of the Lemon test is figuring out what constitutes "entanglements". One example would be if a law required the government to decide what are valid religions and what aren't.

 

[SOS2008]

I don't know how it is equated that to not favor a particular religious group means therefore that we should have an atheist (anti-religious) country!? This also has been brought up more than once in various threads. One of the points in the original post of this thread is if government favors a particular religious group (e.g., Christians) it is contrary to separation of church and state, in that it is discriminatory to other citizens of other religions or of no particular organized religion/dogma.

Secular people, like myself are not necessarily "Godless" and quite frankly I find this offensive. Not that it's anyone's business, but I own a bible, and have the Ten Commandments on my fridge, etc., but this is my choice and that's how it should remain. We all have the right to choose our beliefs, and parents have the right to teach their children what they choose to teach them in their homes, etc. -- it isn't for our government to interfere in our lives and to dictate any of these things. I don't understand what is so difficult about this point.

 

[Integral]

A presidents religious believes should be immaterial, it should not matter in the least what the president believes. What does matter is how religion is translated into law. In our system there is NO place in our laws for religious beliefs. Other then the fundamental one which restricts the government from interfering in an individuals right to believe what he wishes.

So there should be no room in our legal system for a presidents PERSONAL belief system. If a persons belief systems does not permit them to have abortions or marry persons of the same sex then that is their business and they should follow their belief system. On the other hand. If a persons belief system allows such behavior the government should not restrict those rights, with reasons based on a belief system. In other words (Russ) you cannot say it is not right for me, therefore it is not right for you.

That is where our not so great president is getting into grey areas. He and his fundamentalist buddies seem to think that their belief system is some how superior to the the legal system. This is a very scary thing for those of us who do not agree with much that the fundamentalist take for granted. It is very scary that a single religious mindset is gaining so much power that they think their beliefs are core to the American way of life. And that they have a right to declare what is and what is not moral.

 

[russ_watters]

If that's the way you see it, (Integral and SOS), vote accordingly, but that is not the way the Constitution reads or was intended.

And that they have a right to declare what is and what is not moral.

We've had that discussion before: a lot of laws/issues have moral implications (murder, abortion). So the people who write those laws will necessarily use their morality to shape those laws. Thats what we elect/pay them for! If their morality comes form their religion, there is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it - vote for an athiest!

 

[Informal Logic]

If that's the way you see it, (Integral and SOS), vote accordingly, but that is not the way the Constitution reads or was intended. We've had that discussion before: a lot of laws/issues have moral implications (murder, abortion). So the people who write those laws will necessarily use their morality to shape those laws. Thats what we elect/pay them for! If their morality comes form their religion, there is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it - vote for an athiest!

In reading the original post of this thread, it is interesting how the debate can progress as it has. Please explain how you conclude that those who don't want government to dictate particular religious views means they want to be atheist?

 

[Informal Logic]

The type of governing body; that SOS seems to think is his inherent right...godless...has also been responsible for the most deaths of any other type of governing bodies in the world.
You seem to be of the mind that in a country where the overwhelming population professes to be Christian..that a president shouldn't have Christian votes helping him to be in office...what you're spouting is nonsense.

Actually, religion has done far more damage in history, suppressing scientific advancement, gaining wealth in exchange for promises of salvation, killing in the guise "crusades" and now we are dealing with countries in the Middle East with religious governments that we so abhor...I can see how it would be much better to have more of the same here in America.

 

[fifiki]

Furthermore, though it should be assumed that Bush gets his ideas on "right to life" largely from his religion, that is his right. Its only against the establishment clause if he passes a law specific to religion.

I've given you the criterea by which you can easily prove a separation of church and state problem

That's not entirely correct. a government action can violate the establishment clause if the government’s primary purpose was to advance religion, or if the principal effect is to aid or inhibit religion, or if there is excessive government entanglement with religion. Also, it's far from an easy test, if you're read any of the case law on the subject matter at all. There are at least 3 separate theories that people can use when it comes to the establishment clause. The Supreme Court has said that the Establishment Clause jurisprudence is that the government may neither promote nor affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization, nor may it obtrude itself in the internal affairs of any religious institution.

 

[russ_watters]

In reading the original post of this thread, it is interesting how the debate can progress as it has. Please explain how you conclude that those who don't want government to dictate particular religious views means they want to be atheist?

Since it is unreasonable to assume that a politician can "check his religion at the door", the only way to get a politician who doesn't make decisions based on his religion-shaped morality is to elect a politician who doesn't have any religion-shaped morality.

That's not entirely correct. a government action can violate the establishment clause if the government’s primary purpose was to advance religion, or if the principal effect is to aid or inhibit religion, or if there is excessive government entanglement with religion.

I'm not sure why you are saying I'm incorrect - that's the Lemon test I posted. So, clearly, I agree with all of that.

Also, it's far from an easy test...

I mentioned that as well. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said it would be "easy" - but then, there is quite a bit of caselaw on the subject to go by.

 

[fifiki]

Since it is unreasonable to assume that a politician can "check his religion at the door", the only way to get a politician who doesn't make decisions based on his religion-shaped morality is to elect a politician who doesn't have any religion-shaped morality. I'm not sure why you are saying I'm incorrect - that's the Lemon test I posted. So, clearly, I agree with all of that. I mentioned that as well. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said it would be "easy" - but then, there is quite a bit of caselaw on the subject to go by.

well i totally missed that post, i just went by the earlier one where you said that the law is specific to religion.

 

[SOS2008]

Since it is unreasonable to assume that a politician can "check his religion at the door", the only way to get a politician who doesn't make decisions based on his religion-shaped morality is to elect a politician who doesn't have any religion-shaped morality.

Your reasoning is what's faulty. All our presidents have been religious, but they haven't misused the executive office (state) to champion their particular religious beliefs (contrary to neutrality) to impose it upon all other citizens (secular, Jewish, Islamic, etc.) in pursuit of laws (banning abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and even to the point of unprecedented intervention by the Executive Branch and Congress in the private matters of the Shiavo family. How much clearer does it have to be?

And just because people don't choose to wear their beliefs on their sleeves by displaying religious symbols, or marching around, praying in public, sitting in Jeb's office, pushing their beliefs on others, etc. it does not mean they are "Godless" and support atheism (a black and white conclusion). Maybe some of us choose to practice tolerance and respect for other people's beliefs, which is what the president should do, of all people.

I'm not sure why you are saying I'm incorrect - that's the Lemon test I posted. So, clearly, I agree with all of that. I mentioned that as well. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said it would be "easy" - but then, there is quite a bit of caselaw on the subject to go by.

I'm not sure why you feel your persistence on this point makes everyone else's point invalid.

 

[kcballer21]

The type of governing body; that SOS seems to think is his inherent right...godless...has also been responsible for the most deaths of any other type of governing bodies in the world.

What's the implication here?
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-11-mar-2004.html

We've had that discussion before: a lot of laws/issues have moral implications (murder, abortion). So the people who write those laws will necessarily use their morality to shape those laws. Thats what we elect/pay them for! If their morality comes form their religion, there is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it - vote for an athiest!

That's a good point. Democracy is great and all, but can't we all acknowledge that it is a little disturbing that the most powerful man in the world is an evangelical? Shouldn't critical thinking be a prerequisite for the President of the United States? Is someone who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible a critical thinker? I guess that's my biggest problem.

 

[fifiki]

If that's the way you see it, (Integral and SOS), vote accordingly, but that is not the way the Constitution reads or was intended. We've had that discussion before: a lot of laws/issues have moral implications (murder, abortion). So the people who write those laws will necessarily use their morality to shape those laws. Thats what we elect/pay them for! If their morality comes form their religion, there is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it - vote for an athiest!

People elect them so that they can represent the people, not to shape the laws according the their own morality or religion. People can have morals based on their religion, but the line is crossed when those morals have the effect of endorsing a particular view or religion. That's where it becomes dangerous. Those laws with moral implications that you mentioned such as abortion laws, were largely about freedom to choose--that crosses all religious boundaries. However, for Bush, for example, to use his religious morals to create a law, is violative of the establishment clause.

To use your religious morals as the basis of a law, there's a good argument that there was no secular purpose in creating the law. Further the law may no longer be neutral. Also, to insert their morals in that way, it may be that they are affiliating themselves with a particular religious doctrine, which as a government it shouldn't do. Especially when one's moral views affects another's freedom of choice.

As a government representing a group of multicultural people, given freedom of religion and thought, I would hope that when an elected member of government chooses to include their morals into any rule of law, they do so without violating the establishment clause. Just to say that since we all have morals that are based in some way on religion its ok to have laws with those same morals is not enough. The law does not need to specifically mention God or religion to violate the establishment clause.

It's fanciful to think that since we have a "test" then that will tell us when there is a separation of church and state, and it's as simple as that. My answer to those questions could differ drastically from the way others answer them. It's in the application of that test and others that it becomes difficult, and possibly where a little fudging comes in. That was why the last election was so important as Bush may possibly elect 4 or so Supreme Court Justices to the bench who hold his particular viewpoints. That's where morality and religion becomes so important because these are the people who create the laws and without a doubt their religious viewpoints does play a part in their decisions. Just read the case law.

Athiesm is also a system of belief, as other "religions" are, so one cannot simply remove "religion" just by having an athiestic state.

 

[loseyourname]

People elect them so that they can represent the people, not to shape the laws according the their own morality or religion. People can have morals based on their religion, but the line is crossed when those morals have the effect of endorsing a particular view or religion. That's where it becomes dangerous. Those laws with moral implications that you mentioned such as abortion laws, were largely about freedom to choose--that crosses all religious boundaries. However, for Bush, for example, to use his religious morals to create a law, is violative of the establishment clause.

No, it isn't. It's a violation to pass a law favoring one religion over another. If he believes murder and abortion to be morally wrong (for whatever reason), then he should attempt to pass laws outlawing those. If it were a matter of popular opinion rather than the opinions of the lawmakers, I don't think you'd be any happier. Since the vast majority of American citizens are religious Christians, we'd pretty much have Christian laws.

To use your religious morals as the basis of a law, there's a good argument that there was no secular purpose in creating the law.

If favoring one religious morality over another is to be banned as a violation of the constitution, why not the favoring of secular humanism over religious morality? Any why do you assume that secular morals are necessarily going to be any different? I've probably been the most well-spoken and knowledgeable arguer in favor of the pro-life position in the abortion thread in this very forum, yet I'm not the least bit religious. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, I will applaud that decision. Frankly, I don't care if the Supreme Court makes that decision because they are Christians or if, like me, they have reasoned to it by other means. If it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do. It's worth noting that Russ, who is Christian, has stated that he is pro-choice.

Also, to insert their morals in that way, it may be that they are affiliating themselves with a particular religious doctrine, which as a government it shouldn't do.

A government cannot align itself with one religion, a government official can; that is his personal choice and personal liberty. When he is implementing policy, do you honestly expect him to put aside his ethics? Would you pass policy or legislation that you felt was unethical?

Especially when one's moral views affects another's freedom of choice.

All morality affects your freedom of choice. I'd really like to know when choice became the number one value in this nation. There is no virtue simply in having a choice. There is virtue in making the right choice.

Just to say that since we all have morals that are based in some way on religion its ok to have laws with those same morals is not enough.

That is enough. What would you have us do? Only pass laws that are in line with the morality of everybody? We would have no laws if that were the case; some group of people is always going to disagree.

The law does not need to specifically mention God or religion to violate the establishment clause.

On this I can agree. And while we're on the mentioning of God in public policy, removing Ten Commandments plaques and "In God we Trust" is most certainly the right thing to do because, simply put, our nation is not supposed to trust in God. We trust in the constitution and in the people, for better or worse.

Athiesm is also a system of belief, as other "religions" are, so one cannot simply remove "religion" just by having an athiestic state.

That is a good point. By the same token, we also can't bring laws into line with your objections by making them in line with atheistic morality.

 

[fifiki]

No, it isn't. It's a violation to pass a law favoring one religion over another. If he believes murder and abortion to be morally wrong (for whatever reason), then he should attempt to pass laws outlawing those. If it were a matter of popular opinion rather than the opinions of the lawmakers, I don't think you'd be any happier. Since the vast majority of American citizens are religious Christians, we'd pretty much have Christian laws.

I have never said that the laws of the US were never based in some manner in Christian ideology. However, the difference with those laws such as those relating to murder is that it doesn't necessarily point in anyone religious doctrine. These are laws based on crimes that we would all agree are abhorent, no matter what religion we believe in. Or else the laws were design to allow us the freedom to follow one's religion.

Further there is a slippery slope with allowing legislators to create laws simply by following their own morality. What if it wasn't as clear as murder? If we allowed legislators to do this, where will it stop? Shall we override Roe v. Wade because the legislators think it's morally right to do so, never mind a person's own right to choose for themselves? Whatever would that do to free exercise of religion?

Furthermore, who's morality are you going by? To each their own? What chaos that would surely create. Can ANY person be allowed to pass laws no matter his/her morality? What about a satanist? Which religion would you exclude from this free-wheeling religious morality-based lawmaking?

If favoring one religious morality over another is to be banned as a violation of the constitution, why not the favoring of secular humanism over religious morality? Any why do you assume that secular morals are necessarily going to be any different? I've probably been the most well-spoken and knowledgeable arguer in favor of the pro-life position in the abortion thread in this very forum, yet I'm not the least bit religious. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, I will applaud that decision. Frankly, I don't care if the Supreme Court makes that decision because they are Christians or if, like me, they have reasoned to it by other means. If it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do. It's worth noting that Russ, who is Christian, has stated that he is pro-choice.

That's the point. We all think differently. That's why it shouldn't be about religion. What you are saying is that as long as something gets decided the way you like them to be, then you don't care why they decided it that way. Well don't we all want things just the way we like them. That would be just super. The problem is that we do have to think about why they decide certain things because it effects us all. Principally, when the reason they do certain things or make certain laws are based purely out of one's religious morality, that's leaving out the rest of us who think differently. The majority of Americans may be Christians, and the US coin may say God, but US government is still a secular government and that should be kept in mind, especially when the people who lead the nation, make important choices. We should embrace all religions as much as possible and the people in government should represent them all when they do acts of government.

A government cannot align itself with one religion, a government official can; that is his personal choice and personal liberty. When he is implementing policy, do you honestly expect him to put aside his ethics? Would you pass policy or legislation that you felt was unethical?

You seem to think that if one doesn't use one's religious morals as the basis of laws, then it would be like relegating one's morality to the sidelines. It's almost like arguing that athiests are immoral. I'm not saying that one has to toss aside one's religious morality. That would be impossible. However, when legislators are creating laws they have to keep in mind not only their religious morality but those of others also. No one is saying that the legislators has to be free of morals or ethics. Only to embrace not only one's own but to keep in mind that people have their own beliefs. You seem to be missing the point in what I'm trying to say or perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm referring to a situation where because of a certain religious belief, a legislator makes laws in conformity with those beliefs and only those beliefs. In other words the purpose was nonsecular. At the very least, there is a good argument for it.

All morality affects your freedom of choice. I'd really like to know when choice became the number one value in this nation. There is no virtue simply in having a choice. There is virtue in making the right choice.

Of course, any decision affects choice and any law would affect another's freedom to do as one wishes. However, I was making the point that an argument could be made that the establishment clause may be violated and that legislation would arguably be deemed unconstitutional, especially if freedom of choice was considerably affected. The courts do look at that as a factor when it's a large enough factor.

That is enough. What would you have us do? Only pass laws that are in line with the morality of everybody? We would have no laws if that were the case; some group of people is always going to disagree.

I meant not enough as in there needs to be more foundation than that if you want to insert a personal religious viewpoint into creating a legislation. Just saying, oh mostly everyone has religious morals, that's ok for the legislators to act in non-secular ways. That's not enough.

That is a good point. By the same token, we also can't bring laws into line with your objections by making them in line with atheistic morality.

I never said that laws must follow atheistic morals. Legislators should not endorse a particular belief and there is a danger of that when legislation gets created BASED on religious morality.

 

[kyleb]

If he believes murder and abortion to be morally wrong (for whatever reason), then he should attempt to pass laws outlawing those.

So you believe that our system of government should not be a representative democracy but rather a democratically elected oligarchy, eh? Interesting.

 

[russ_watters]

Your reasoning is what's faulty. All our presidents have been religious, but they haven't misused the executive office (state) to champion their particular religious beliefs (contrary to neutrality) to impose it upon all other citizens (secular, Jewish, Islamic, etc.) in pursuit of laws (banning abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and even to the point of unprecedented intervention by the Executive Branch and Congress in the private matters of the Shiavo family. How much clearer does it have to be?

Well, to put a fine point on it - clear enough for a law to get struck down by the USSC...

Once again, if you disagree, give a specific example. These vagaries don't help your case any.

(the one specific example you gave, the Schaivo case - it was not struck down because of an establishment clause issue. Once again, you are wrong.)

I'm not sure why you feel your persistence on this point makes everyone else's point invalid.

Quite simply, your point is invalid because it doesn't fit reality. It doesn't fit the reality of how people's minds work and it doesn't fit the reality of how the Constitution works. Its pretty straightforward.

It just seems to me that you guys are bitter that your candidate didn't win the election. Sorry, but that sometimes happens in a democracy. If your candidate doesn't win, you may not like the direction the government goes. Deal with it.

 

[russ_watters]

So you believe that our system of government should not be a representative democracy but rather a democratically elected oligarchy, eh? Interesting.

What are you talking about? That doesn't even make any sense. We have a representative democracy and Bush was elected. Its his job to make decisions based on his best judgement. That's what we hired him to do. Again, its pretty straightforward.

 

[russ_watters]

You guys are talking vagaries and generalities. Let's get specific:

Say, for example, I'm a devout Catholic and I believe the Catholic Church's position that life starts at conception. Therefore, I'm pro-life (in reality, I'm a pro choice Protestant). I state openly that I'm pro life and I state why. I get elected to Congress and sponsor a bill to outlaw abortion. The bill passes, becomes law, and is challenged. Is this law a violation of separation of church and state? Why or why not?

I have already said that many of the opinions expressed here do not fit with the Constitution, so if you have such an opinion, give two answers: tell me how you wish it would work and tell me how the Constitution says it works. The Constitutional issues are outlined in post 30. If you don't agree with the Constitution, tell me why the Constitution should be changed.

 

[fifiki]

It just seems to me that you guys are bitter that your candidate didn't win the election. Sorry, but that sometimes happens in a democracy. If your candidate doesn't win, you may not like the direction the government goes. Deal with it.

Since when is having a discussion bitter? I find that a very childish statement to make. Just because one candidate didn't win doesn't mean those that voted for that person must just sit back and not criticize or argue or object. If people did that the world would get no where. It also doesn't mean that what the government is doing is necessarily correct.

 

[russ_watters]

Since when is having a discussion bitter? I find that a very childish statement to make. Just because one candidate didn't win doesn't mean those that voted for that person must just sit back and not criticize or argue or object. If people did that the world would get no where. It also doesn't mean that what the government is doing is necessarily correct.

You're certainly free to criticize him for his decisions, but what you are arguing about is how he makes his decisions. On that, you are not free to criticize him.

edit: this is beautiful - we've come full circle. We're back to "1984" - now we're telling the President how he can think!

 

[fifiki]

You're certainly free to criticize him for his decisions, but what you are arguing about is how he makes his decisions. On that, you are not free to criticize him.

No, its the reasons behind the law and it's objective, and it's effects. Further, how he makes those decisions can also be unconstitutional if it violates procedural due process. The reasons behind the law=religious morality. Arguably, those laws might have the principle effect of aiding or inhibiting religion, or there might be excessive government entanglement with religion. I'm not arguing that we can criticize how a person thinks.

It's not about how he thinks! Of course people can think what they like, or else what is the point of my arguing free exercise of religion and the establishment clause. BUT has a president, he as a duty NOT to insert his personal beliefs into laws. If the law seems only to be concerned with a particular religious consideration, then there may be a violation. It's not what he thinks, it's what he does as president.

 

[kyleb]

What are you talking about? That doesn't even make any sense. We have a representative democracy and Bush was elected. Its his job to make decisions based on his best judgement. That's what we hired him to do. Again, its pretty straightforward.

It is his job to administer the will of the majorty while protecting the rights of the minority; ignoring that most fundamental premise of democracy makes one nothing more than an interim tyrant.

 

[fifiki]

What are you talking about? That doesn't even make any sense. We have a representative democracy and Bush was elected. Its his job to make decisions based on his best judgement. That's what we hired him to do. Again, its pretty straightforward.

HIS judgment? The President is supposed to represent all Americans. That is why the US has a system of separation of powers and why the Constitution is the highest law in the land. It seems like what you are talking about is dictatorship.

 

[russ_watters]

No, its the reasons behind the law and it's objective, and it's effects. Further, how he makes those decisions can also be unconstitutional if it violates procedural due process. The reasons behind the law=religious morality.

And you would base that on what, exactly? Can you cite a single case where that was at issue?

No, you can't read between the lines of a law and challenge the motivation of the person who authored it. In the example I gave, there is nothing unconstitutional about the process I outlined.

Arguably, those laws might have the principle effect of aiding or inhibiting religion, or there might be excessive government entanglement with religion.

Provide an example.

I'm not arguing that we can criticize how a person thinks.

You are: its in the first sentence of your post!

BUT has a president, he as a duty NOT to insert his personal beliefs into laws.

Tell me where I can find that in the Constitution or any constitutional law issue.

If the law seems only to be concerned with a particular religious consideration, then there may be a violation. It's not what he thinks, it's what he does as president.

That's not the same as what you said above: before you said there can't be any religious idea shaping his actions. If a specific religious purpose makes it into a law, that's one thing. But a religious motivation for a moral idea turned into a non-religion-specific law is quite another.

HIS judgment? The President is supposed to represent all Americans. That is why the US has a system of separation of powers and why the Constitution is the highest law in the land. It seems like what you are talking about is dictatorship.

I even used the words "representative democracy" in the quote you are claiming talks about dictatorship. This has nothing to do with separation of powers or dictatorship. C'mon, the reality of democracy is that the President can't please everyone all the time. Every decision he makes will go against the beliefs/wishes of someone. The best he can do is to act as he advertised he would in his campaign. Thats simple reality - and is anyone surprised at what we've gotten in the past 2 months since he was reelected?