Worship Attendance in the States

 Many posts have discussed the role of religion in American life.  

Alex Fitzpatrick and Alice Feng at Axios:

Data: Household Pulse Survey; Note: Adults who say they never attend a service or attend less than once a year; Map: Alice Feng/Axios

Vermont (75%), New Hampshire (66%) and Maine (66%) have the highest share of adults who say they never or seldom attend church or religious services, compared to the national average of 49%, per a new Axios analysis of Household Pulse Survey data.

Why it matters: More than three-quarters of Americans say religion's role in public life is shrinking, per a recent Pew Research Center survey — the highest level since the group first started tracking such sentiment in 2001.Many Americans are unhappy about that, with about half of adults telling Pew both that "religion is losing influence and that this is a bad thing."
About 57% of adults say that religion has a positive impact on American life, per Pew.

The other side: Mississippi (32%), Alabama (36%) and Louisiana (37%) have the lowest share of adults who say they never or seldom attend services.

Fake Tocqueville in Alabama

Many posts have discussed the fake Tocqueville quotation, "America is great, because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."

At The Alabama Political Reporter, Representative Bradley Byrne (R-AL) recalls a naturalization ceremony:

That morning at the U.S.S. Alabama Battleship Memorial Park, I spoke of the American belief in self-government, that ‘we the people’ can govern ourselves. To successfully execute such a radical (at the time) idea, we had to found our nation on some basic values. From our adherence and loyalty to those values, our American character was created.

I quoted the words of the nineteenth century French observer of early America, Alexis De Tocqueville, written several decades after our nation’s founding. He said “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Tocqueville never wrote any such thing. The bogus line has been circulating for many years. There has been a good deal of work on its origin, but it is certain that it did not originate with Tocqueville.

Due Process

Disgraced former judge Roy Moore faces accusations of child molestation.  Does the right to due process mean that voters should presume him innocent?  Nope, says David French at NRO:

Constitutional protections for due process apply when the state is attempting to deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property.” That’s why we have trials before we render civil or criminal judgments. That’s why due process is mandatory before state-mandated punishment in campus sexual assault tribunals. As a general rule, when the state is attempting to deprive you of rights you’d otherwise enjoy, due process attaches. Here, there is no state action. Roy Moore will not lose his life, liberty, or property if voters reject his bid for high office.

Due process protections, absolutely, positively do not prevent voters from evaluating the veracity of news reports and judging whether a politician is fit for public office. It was entirely fair for voters to analyze the available facts about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal or the available facts about the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation without waiting for the outcome of a civil or criminal proceeding. It is entirely fair for members of the public to evaluate Juanita Broaddrick’s claims against Bill Clinton without a trial. Similarly, it’s entirely fair for the public to analyze the available facts about Roy Moore before deciding how to vote.

Expulsion from the Senate

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is on trial for bribery.  If the jury convicts him, there would surely be a move for his expulsion.  Accused child molester Roy Moore could actually win a Senate race in Alabama. If so, the Senate would have to seat him, but then it could expel him.

From the Congressional Research Service:

The authority of the United States Senate (as well as of the House) to establish the rules for its own proceedings, to “punish” its Members for misconduct, and to expel a Member by a vote of two-thirds of Members present and voting, is provided in the Constitution at Article I, Section 5, clause 2. This express grant of authority for the Senate to expel a Senator is, on its face, unlimited — save for the requirement of a two-thirds majority. In the context of what the Supreme Court has characterized as, in effect, an “unbridled discretion” of the body, expulsions in the Senate, as well as the House, have historically been reserved for cases of the most serious misconduct: disloyalty to the government or abuses of one’s official position. The Senate has actually expelled only 15 Members — 14 of those during the Civil War period for disloyalty to the Union (one of these expulsions was subsequently revoked by the Senate), and the other Senator during the late 1700s for disloyal conduct. The House of Representatives has expelled only five Members in its history, three during the Civil War period, one in 1980, and another in 2002, after convictions for bribery and corruption offenses related to official congressional duties. In the Senate, as well as in the House, however, other Members for whom expulsion was recommended have resigned from office prior to official, formal action by the institution.

...

George Wallace

As numerous posts have noted, the mass media sometimes get their facts wrong. Yesterday, MSNBC goofed in identifying the party of Alabama Governor George Wallace, who "stood in the schoolhouse" door in an effort to keep African Americans out of the University of Alabama.  The graphic identified him as a Republican, but he was a lifelong Democrat.  In 1964 and 1972, he sought the Democratic nomination for president.  In the latter race, he won Democratic primaries in Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

Chris Hayes later apologized for the error.