Lieberman: Amend Constitution to Save Pledge

Newsmax ^ | June 26, 2002 | Newsmax

[Conservative Chicagoan]

NewsMax.com

 

Wednesday, June 26, 2002

Lieberman: Amend Constitution to Save Pledge

Lawmakers of both parties are stampeding to condemn today's decision by two federal judges in San Francisco claiming the Pledge of Allegiance is somehow unconstitutional.

Among the most vehement on Capitol Hill: White House hopeful Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who immediately called for a constitutional amendment to keep "under God" in the pledge.

"There may have been a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a court at some time, but I don't remember it," the Connecticut Democrat fumed.

"Let us not wait for the Supreme Court to act on this," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va. "Why don't we go ahead and formulate this amendment, put it together, have it in place, presumably with all 100 United States senators?"

"What's next?" asked Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. "Will our courts, in their zeal to abolish all religious faith from public arenas, outlaw 'God Bless America' too?

"The great strength of the United States is that we are and will continue to be, despite the liberal court's decision, one nation under God."

Senate President Pro Tem Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., called 9th Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin an "atheist lawyer."

"I hope his name never comes before this body for any promotion, because he will be remembered," warned Byrd.

A product that might interest you:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today

[Conservative Chicagoan]

It looks to me like Liberman is lieing to protect himself and his treasonous friends.

[537 Votes]

I have trouble pledging the flag, too, when I remember that so many of those stars elected the likes of Lieberman, Daschle, and Hillary.

[Shermy]

Lieberman, shut up. Just support the appeal. Read the parts of the constitution about the Supreme Court.

[Sabertooth]

What a dumb idea.

Lieberman ought to stop supporting activist judges hellbent on erasing God from American History.

And he ought to call for the Impeachment of judges who do. A lot easier and more effective than a Constitutional Ammendment.

[Sungirl]

Sounds like Rush was Right On as usual.....the Democrats are going to pay dearly for this (Klintons appointees) at the polls....
Like Lieberman...they are all going to try to cover their @$$ to save the votes.

[twntaipan]

Yep--the demoncRATS are scared to death--they have never reacted so quickly to something of this nature--they are in fear for their political lives. To which I say, "Hooray!"

[maro]

This is what's going on: Sore Loserman is afraid that the Supremes will take the opportunity to write an opinion that will cast a pro-religion penumbra. He doesn't want that, because he suspects that pro-religion tends to come out pro-Christian, so he would pre-empt the issue by a rifle-shot amendment that leaves open the argument that the 9th Circuit was right on the law.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Just yesterday the Dem. Senate was working to undermine and destroy both God and family with CEDAW, ENDA and "hate crimes" legislation protecting their two biggest remaining lobbies, gay and feminists (or, one remaining lobby + one or two straight feminists).

[McLynnan]

Very nice new picture! Lieberman is trying to sound presidential again. Poor thing.

[OldFriend]

This decision was a heaven sent gift!

[APBaer]

"I hope his name never comes before this body for any promotion, because he will be remembered"

What a piece of posturing By Byrd, the judge is 80 years old, not likely to be nominated for a promotion even if universally acclaimed as "a Daniel come to judgment"

[I still care]

Newt Gingrich was on FOX tonight tying this decision completely into the failure of the Senate to put through Bush's justices. He said they pulled this lead judge out of retirement because they didn't have enough judges to staff the Federal Courts, laying it at the feet of the Democratic Senate. Go Newt!

[Aleksandar Vojvoda]

Is Mr. Lievermin still supporting the KLA?

[CedarDave]

No, we don't need a constitutional amendment for this (or to prevent flag burning for that matter). I would oppose cluttering up our Constitution with issue specific changes. More laws do not make better citizens, and the problem in this case is improper judicial interpretation of our existing constitution.

[nunya bidness]

This is getting silly.

[Howlin]

Just like that? Let's have a constitutional amendment? Are people REALLY that stupid?

Do not EVER forget that once they get a "convention" going there is absolutely, postively NO WAY to stop them.

NO!

[OldFriend]

Don't you remember Hitlery saying the FIRST thing she was going to do was introduce a bill to end the electoral college. DEMS ARE DUM DUM DUM!

But this decision is a great gift to the republicans......LOL

[Howlin]

Yes, I most certainly do.

[MinuteGal]

My whole brain is tied behind my back tonight after this decision. Someone refresh my memory. Doesn't it take X number of state legislatures to approve a constitutional convention for an amendment, a process that could take years?

And am I not correct in stating that such a convention cannot be confined to one amendment only? If so, this would leave the door wide open for any dangerous amendments de jour the libs would rush in to propose.

The lefties would LOVE a constitutional convention, which is undoubtedly why LIEberman is proposing one.

Leni

[DoughtyOne]

the case of the Freeper FRiva Feva is awaiting your participation - contest winner will receive their FRiva Las Vegas Registration free

contest starts each night between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. p.d.t. - there's still time to place well tongiht - give it a try if you dare