Posted on 06/26/2002 4:14:12 PM PDT by MosesKnows
Why do I feel the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have done the First Amendment and the Nation a favor?
The decision taken by the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals will cause discussions of the First Amendment that heretofore have not been available to the public. I see this as a very positive event. The education of the masses to the purpose and history of the cherished First Amendment will be the final result of this decision.
Even citizens who are not familiar with the First Amendment will be exposed to its meaning and all the topics related to this decision will be aired in public. Several examples of these related topics are:
Separation of church and state. Where did that expression come from? Is it in the Constitution? What constitutes the establishment of a state religion?
Judges. What is the process used to select Judges? Who is involved in that process? Do Judges have the power to make law? Can Judges be removed?
What is Constitutional? Did the Constitution grant the government the specific enumerated power to involve the Federal government in the public school system? Is the Department of Education Constitutional?
What did the unratified Preamble to the Bill of Rights state? Why was it not ratified?
What is a right? Where did our rights come from? Who protects our right?
What else is unconstitutional? This could be the most valuable of all lessons learned.
Discussions of these questions and more will be forthcoming in the very near future. And in my opinion the discussions will be to the benefit of the entire nation.
And the more the public knows, the more they will despise this 9th circuit courts opinion.
And it will mobilize Republicans this November, too.
Hopefully, it will be harder for Schumer and Leahy to block Bush's appointments on the grounds of Conservatives being out of the mainstream when Liberals are making asinine rulings like today's.
-PJ
I don't see the twisted logic that dictates a teacher in a local school reciting the pledge is somehow congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress didn't make any law establishing any religion. The whacked out court is prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This kind distorted reading of the very plain and simple text contained in our founding documents needs to be shouted down, or beaten down .... whichever works best. It just needs to stop.
The danger I see in this decision, aside from the constitutional and religious implications, is one of incrementally dismantling traditions and foundations that distinctly characterizes what being an "American" is. It is just one more step towards a "global", "I'm a citizen of the world" mentality that dilutes or diminishes the distinctive American culture. Perhaps in a very small way, but the effect is just the same.
Thomas Jefferson, by no means an imprecise thinker, was well aware of this consideration. In commenting upon how the Constitution should properly be read, he said: "On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed.”
:
In the 1950's Ike saw that the phrase was added. Perhaps in an era of anti-Communist paranoia there was a civic "need" for such a pledge and, perhaps, even the phrase to help distinguish America from the atheistic Communist statism. This is another relic of the Cold War.
It's not surprising persons from that area, including W, are having fits over this common sense ruling as it puts out-dated precepts in which they were indoctrinated on their ear.
Contrast this with the henious blight of Roe vs. Wade wherein we are a nation of dual legalistic thinking. One the one-hand a woman cannot be "forced to procreate", that is, carry to term a child wherein she (nearly always) consciously consented to engage in the sexual act which resulted in conception. On-the-other-hand, the sperm donor not only MAY be forced to procreate, his livelihood is held captive by the woman with the force of the state itself as enforcer. And no where does anyone care to think about the vicious horror of beginning a life only to destroy it, helpless and defenseless. Sometimes America makes me want to vomit.
Before I explain the two ways to become a judge some ground rules must be established:
A) All politicians are scum.
B) All lawyers are scum.
C) Most judges were lawyers before taking the bench.
Having established that, there are two ways to become a judge:
1) By appointment by the POTUS or Gov. of your state. This makes a person guilty of being a politician by association(refer to rule A but don't forget B & C).
2)Being elected to the office. Making you an outright politician(Refer to rule A again without forgetting B & C).
Agreed. Unless the TV media keeps talking it up, it will be a dead issue by tomorrow.
DAMN! It's not often you see the first post of a thread sum it up all so accurately! My hat is off to you.
Many schools, at least in the cities allowed children to use it or not...I've never gotten used to it and as traditions go, it is shy a few years.
Britt Hume was hilarious. He ended the Fox News tonight by saying, "Stay tuned to Fox News, fair and balanced," and then added with a smile, "and UNDER GOD."
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.