Skip to comments.
House Protects God in Pledge of Allegiance
Fox News ^
| 6/19/06
Posted on 07/19/2006 2:06:42 PM PDT by bnelson44
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 next last
To: Jacquerie
"Am I to understand you are not pleased that unlike our federal courts, Congress attempted to follow the prescribed constitutional route to amend the Constitution?"
Not when they try to pass amendments that clearly violate the intentions of the framers. See flag burning for a example. I would never burn a flag as it stands right now however if that stupid law was pass you better believe I would call the cops and media, invite them to my house, sit down like Gandhi, light a match and wait for them to start beating me. Its called Free Political Speech.
To: Jacquerie
"Am I to understand you are not pleased that unlike our federal courts, Congress attempted to follow the prescribed constitutional route to amend the Constitution?"
Not when they try to pass amendments that clearly violate the intentions of the framers. See flag burning for a example. I would never burn a flag as it stands right now however if that stupid law was pass you better believe I would call the cops and media, invite them to my house, sit down like Gandhi, light a match and wait for them to start beating me. Its called Free Political Speech.
To: sedwards; OneWingedShark
Not when they try to pass amendments that clearly violate the intentions of the framers. Oh, okay. So some amendments are more legitimate than others, right? That is the left's attitude. How are things going at DUH and KOS?
103
posted on
07/20/2006 2:54:33 PM PDT
by
Jacquerie
(Democrats soil institutions.)
To: Dave W
Thank you for pointing out that federal courts are not omnipotent. Congress and the Executive can nullify the blackrobes when they find their spines.
104
posted on
07/20/2006 3:05:59 PM PDT
by
Jacquerie
(Democrats soil institutions.)
To: sedwards
The last time I checked it was the right always yelling, privacy is not listed in the Constitution whenever a law is being passed by a legislative body limiting privacy and the courts shut it down. That is because 'privacy' has been defined by the courts as the right to kill your baby. Only a DU troll would put forward this arguement.
To: Always Right
How is it Socialists?
Maybe you should look up who it was originally written by.
106
posted on
07/20/2006 4:03:27 PM PDT
by
Quick1
(There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
To: do the dhue
Exactly when and what was this being voted on? And was it killed in the House or Senate? Also, can you tell me how each Rep and/or Senator voted?
You can find most of the details in the article, and someone in the thread was helpful enough to post who voted which way.
107
posted on
07/20/2006 4:05:05 PM PDT
by
Quick1
(There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
To: sedwards
Not when they try to pass amendments that clearly violate the intentions of the framers. I am just curious, exactly which intentions of the framers are they violating? I suppose you could make a case that any amendment violates their intent since they did not include it, but yet the framers put in a process to admend it.
To: Quick1
Maybe you should look up who it was originally written by. It does not matter if Karl Marx wrote it. Besides, socialists are globalists. Nationalism/patriotism is quite the opposite.
To: Always Right
Its really simple. Explain how flag burning is not a form of political speech. Compare and contrast me burning my own flag in my own yard verse a bunch of guys running in to Boston harbor throwing tea in the water they do not own, overboard.
To: sedwards
I expect you would go right along with a law requiring a license to learn to read English so people could never understand Lockes ideas that influenced Jefferson and Madison. A license to learn to read English? What orphace to you pull this crap out of?
To: Jacquerie
Yes thats correct. Just because an amendment is passed does not mean its legitimate. If the second amendment was repealed that would not change the fact you have a right to own arms, or if the first was repealed it does not change the fact you have a God given right to free political speech.
To: sedwards
Its really simple. Explain how flag burning is not a form of political speech. First this is not about the flag burning amendment. Second, I agree on that, it is protected free speech and should not be regulated even by Constitutional Amendment. It is too easy for a future court to twist that into a power of the government to suppress any anti-government speech.
To: Always Right
"Only a DU troll would put forward this arguement."
Lets try to have a discussion without name calling. If you want to debate point by point I am happy to.
To: Always Right
It does not matter if Karl Marx wrote it.
And that's where we differ.
115
posted on
07/20/2006 4:23:43 PM PDT
by
Quick1
(There is no Theory of Evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.)
To: Jacquerie
"Oh, okay. So some amendments are more legitimate than others, right? That is the left's attitude. How are things going at DUH and KOS?"
As I just stated yes just because a amendment could be passed does not mean it is or is not a freedom. Your rights are God given and inalienable.
Lets try having a discussion on issues without you trying to launch in to an attack as to what other blogs I might or might not read. I don't even know what DUH is.
To: Quick1
And that's where we differ. So if Karl Marx said we should have the right to bear arms, you would oppose it on those grounds? To me, it has no bearing. It is either a good idea or not.
To: stands2reason
I don't know who your God is, but mine is strong enough not to need to be protected by my inconsequential soul. I don't know who your God is, but mine has warned us that if we don't call upon the Lord, the watchmen watch in vain.
What does that have to do with the pledge?
If you haven't already read 1776 by David McCullough, I recommend it highly. It may give you an idea of what my comment has to do with the pledge.
I'm not the only American who then and now believes that our nation exists only by the grace of God, and thus it is only right that we acknowledge our dependence on the Creator for our future survival.
118
posted on
07/20/2006 4:27:40 PM PDT
by
patriciaruth
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)
To: Always Right
"First this is not about the flag burning amendment. Second, I agree on that, it is protected free speech..."
You were replying to a prior discussion I was having regarding congressional power verses the courts and rights as enumerated by the Constitution.
To: sedwards
Yes thats correct. Just because an amendment is passed does not mean its legitimate. If the second amendment was repealed that would not change the fact you have a right to own arms, or if the first was repealed it does not change the fact you have a God given right to free political speech. It does not change whether it is a God-given right, but if the Constitution was admended to empower the government to regulate political speech, then it would be Consitutional for the government to regulate political free speech. An admendment that passes is legitimate no matter what the framers thought or said.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson