House Protects God in Pledge of Allegiance

Fox News ^ | 6/19/06

[bnelson44]

WASHINGTON — The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."

The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167. It now goes to the Senate where its future is uncertain.

"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."

[sedwards]

"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.

[sedwards]

"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.

[Jacquerie]

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?

[Jacquerie]

Thank you for pointing out that federal courts are not omnipotent. Congress and the Executive can nullify the blackrobes when they find their spines.

[Always Right]

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.

[Quick1]

How is it Socialists?

Maybe you should look up who it was originally written by.

[Quick1]

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.

[Always Right]

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.

[Always Right]

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.

[sedwards]

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.

[Always Right]

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?

[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.

[Always Right]

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.

[sedwards]

"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.

[Quick1]

It does not matter if Karl Marx wrote it.

And that's where we differ.

[sedwards]

"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.

[Always Right]

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.

[patriciaruth]

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.

[sedwards]

"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.

[Always Right]

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.