Posted on 09/14/2005 11:51:27 AM PDT by Rightwingmom
SAN FRANCISCO — Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (search) in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I'm very proud of you in Idaho! If you listened or watched the NASCAR race this past weekend, the Pledge was recited prior to the singing of the National Anthem and the folks did the same thing. Screaming "under God"!
Er... yeah. Right.
"[To establish republican government, it is necessary to] effect a constitution in which the will of the nation shall have an organized control over the actions of its government, and its citizens a regular protection against its oppressions." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1816. ME 19:240
"It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses." --Thomas Jefferson to Noah Webster, 1790. ME 8:112
Finally...
So far is it from being true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the general Constitution than in those of the States, the contrary is evidently the fact. This system, if it is possible for the people of America to accede to it, will be an original compact; and being the last wilt, in the nature of things, vacate every former agreement inconsistent with it. For it being a plan of government received and ratified by the whole people, all other forms which are in existence at the time of its adoption, must yield to it. This is expressed in positive and unequivocal terms in the sixth article: "That this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution, or laws of any State, to the contrary notwithstanding."
"The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, and of the several States, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."
It is therefore not only necessarily implied thereby, but positively expressed, that the different State Constitutions are repealed and entirely done away, so far as they are inconsistent with this, with the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, or with treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States. Of what avail will the Constitutions of the respective States be to preserve the rights of its citizens? Should they be pled, the answer would be, the Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, is the supreme law, and all legislatures and judicial officers, whether of the General or State governments, are bound by oath to support it. No privilege, reserved by the bills of rights, or secured by the State governments, can limit the power granted by this, or restrain any laws made in pursuance of it. It stands, therefore, on its own bottom, and must receive a construction by itself, without any reference to any other. And hence it was of the highest importance, that the most precise and express declarations and reservations of rights should have been made.
This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but alt treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the Constitutions of all the States. The power to make treaties, is vested in the president, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the senate. I do not find any limitation or restriction to the exercise of this power. The most important article in any Constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act. Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought.
-Brutus. Antifederalist #84
So yeah... despite your buying into the 20th century Big Lie of incorperation due to the FedGov needing to restate the above sentiments in the 1th Amendment, does your side of the argument no service. We have inalienable Rights. As humans. As US citizens. No one, not State and certainly not Local, have the power to strip us of those basic Rights.
Arguing otherwise only puts you on the side of the tyrants and dictator wanna-be's currently trying to destroy this country from the inside out.
It is also clear that the religion they practised, and used as the moral underpinning, was Christian. In fact, at the time, because of the nature of Christianity, when practised as advertised (love they neighbor as thyself, do unto others, etc), it was probably the only persuasion at the time that could make the morally responsible liberty espoused by the founders work.
But I do not believe they intended it to be defined only for a specific religion. As I said, as long as the foundational moral principles are in place and unalienable rights are recognized and vouchsafed, along with the understanding that they come from God, it will not matter.
Therefore, an understanding that we are "under God" is intrinsic to the understanding of the basis of this Republic.
I think that's what he siad but since whole case was thrown out by SCOTUS because father didn't have right to sue, 9th circus should be binding precedent. You don't need to tie Larry's hands to get him to rule against religion. Remember this:?www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37668e6e28ae.htm
...sentiments in the 14th Amendment....
IMHO, they will find (the liberals/elitists/marxists/aethists/etc.) that this is going to be a "bridge too far".
Sorry Typo: meant to say Should NOT be precedent.
Yes, it is God awful. I understand that this Judge was appointed by Jimmy Carter. Nuff said.
Court Order on Infected Inmates
American Medical News (05/24/93) Vol. 36, No. 20, P. 2
Basically every monotheist religion shares the same moral guidelines, which, coincidentally enough, were the guidelines upon which our country is founded as well.
So in your world, you don't want any religious values informing law.
What, pray tell, would your standard be?
Your own mind, or someone else's?
Hint: Those are the only two choices left. So in a world which rejects all religion based morality, whoever is the big dog calls the shots. That's the way it ever was, and ever will be.
THAT'S THE BEST IDEA I'VE HEARD SO FAR!
The objectivists have it figured out pretty well. I think the Founders would have approved. Well, Jefferson and Paine certainly would have. Maybe not Adams or Franklin.
They aren't laughing at me.
They're laughing at those who have made themselves enemies of that which made this country good. I am not among their number.
Here is some more Karlon handywork from last year just to give you a flavor for this guy:
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has handed down a devastating ruling for farmers who depend on San Joaquin River water for irrigation.Judge Karlton ruled that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has violated federal fish protection laws for 50 years by diverting 95 percent of thewater in the San Joaquin River for agricultural use. Because Karlton offered no solution to the problem, the state of California will now be responsible for a remedy that restores two salmon runs on the SanJoaquin.
Jefferson would have had no qualms (and actually had no qualms) about supporting the moral guidelines as expressed in the monotheist religions of the world.
You do know that, right?
Even objectivists (whatever they are) in those days would haave disavowed "gay" marriage. In fact, Jefferson, in his enlightened consciousness, changed the punishment for sodomy in the state of Virginia from execution to, IIRC, castration.
Oh, and authorized the observance of the Sabbath.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.