Impeachment on the 9th Circuit?

I think they were looking to that decision to shoot down one of Newdow's arguments, where he attempts to strip Congress of protection by making an a priori finding that Congress had violated the Establishment Clause. In other words, he was attempting to prove that they had violated the Establishment Clause, but needed to assume that that was the case before he could prove it (!).

I believe that it is common to reference parameters established in the previous case without reference to the Constitution in the current case since the previous case would supposedly have proceeded from the relevant sections in the Constitution.

Just because they have a few reasonable points in their text doesn't make their conclusion correct though. I think most of the obvious points have been made on this thread already; the simple fact is that no one established a state religion by including the words "under God" anymore than the signers did when they claimed that rights proceeded from the Creator.

One way or another, by Supreme Court decision or Constitutional Amendment, this turkey is going down. I'd personally like to see it by amendment; it would point out -- for the first time in a long time -- that we are not a judgeocracy, or a democracy, but a Republic, where the representatives of the people and the states themselves form the government they want. And it will be, for a time, unassailable.

But don't worry. The De-Constructors will start gnawing on the roots of the tree again soon. And once more, the pest control measures will have to be taken..

I believe that it is common to reference parameters established in the previous case without reference to the Constitution in the current case since the previous case would supposedly have proceeded from the relevant sections in the Constitution.

That's what I assumed, but it's frightening to contemplate that a some horrendous future judicial fiat that the SCOTUS fails to overturn could result in a tower of garbage that may topple the Republic.

Well, the government DID say there'd be an attack on America this summer. Little did we all realize that it'd come from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals!

Judicial activism is probably the most serious danger this country faces. It is the third branch of government usurping the power of the legislative branch, thus negating the will of the people.

The second most serious danger facing the country is the fact that the rights of the minority (which I agree must be looked after) is outstripping the rights of the rest of the country to such an extent that a single person, or small group, can destroy this country at will through the use of the judicial branch. This is not a minor incident, it is the systimatic destruction of the very foundations of this country. The seperation of powers, and the checks and balances, devised by our forefathers protected our system from the abuse of power. The last decade, there has been such a blurring of the lines of responsibility between the branches that a very dangerous situation exists.

Congress must protect it's perogatives, as must the Administrative, and the Judicial branch must be returned to interpreting the law.

And BTW, that's the perfect Sabertooth for this thread ;o)

Sorry, no. It means no more or less than the federal government may not establish a religion as the official one of the United States.

From Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in today’s school voucher decision:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” On its face, this provision places no limit on the States with regard to religion. The Establishment Clause originally protected States, and by extension their citizens, from the imposition of an established religion by the Federal Government.² Whether and how this Clause should constrain state action under the Fourteenth Amendment is a more difficult question.

The Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally restructured the relationship between individuals and the States and ensured that States would not deprive citizens of liberty without due process of law. It guarantees citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized in the United States and provides that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As Justice Harlan noted, the Fourteenth Amendment “added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship, and to the security of personal liberty.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 555 (1896) (dissenting opinion). When rights are incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment they should advance, not constrain, individual liberty.

Consequently, in the context of the Establishment Clause, it may well be that state action should be evaluated on different terms than similar action by the Federal Government. “States, while bound to observe strict neutrality, should be freer to experiment with involvement [in religion]–on a neutral basis–than the Federal Government.” Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 699 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). Thus, while the Federal Government may “make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” the States may pass laws that include or touch on religious matters so long as these laws do not impede free exercise rights or any other individual religious liberty interest. By considering the particular religious liberty right alleged to be invaded by a State, federal courts can strike a proper balance between the demands of the Fourteenth Amendment on the one hand and the federalism prerogatives of States on the other.³

These judges must be Impeached.

They DO need to be impeached, but lets wait till we win back the Senate and the administration's judiciary nominations get the nod. Would be political suicide to go through an impeachment now don't ya know.

But Congress by the same token is forbidden from endorsing a religion

So, tell me, which religion are the words "under God" establishing?

I read Justice Thomas's opinion as supporting what I wrote. I was responding to this sentence in your post:

The phrase prohibits Congress, and therefore the Federal government, from making any laws regarding religion.

I regard that as slightly incorrect. The Feds may make laws regarding religion (according to the original intent of the First Amendment), but they may not make laws establishing a religion.

I agree with you that the intent was to keep Congress from fooling around with those states that did have official religions.