Vanity: The Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional - If That Doesn't Convince You What Will?

June 26, 2002 | Jim Robinson

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

The question is one of intent - does a state-mandated, state-run institution requiring a pledge which includes the phrase 'under God' constitute a violation of the principle expressed by the phrase 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' IOW, does it respect an establishment of religion, and, if it does, does it fall under the jurisdiction of that phrase?

Apparently you are not familiar with the Barnette decision of the Supreme Court in 1943.

[BobFromNJ]

Right you are!



BobfromNJ

[Amelia]

Do you really believe children are sophisticated enough to discern and accept the nuances between 'god', 'great spirit', 'allah', 'jehovah', 'buddha', etc., etc., etc.?

I think children would assume that "God" was their god of choice. You don't?

[Ravenstar]

You are way off base. First you need an English lesson because it is very on point. The First Major Clause of the First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

There are two minor clauses here and as an English teacher will tell you cannot use a minor clause on its own because it will change the intended meaning.

Let's keep the argument clear. You must consider the whole major clause or you are taking it out of context. The Courts have done this repeatedly and are therefore Unconstitutional in their rulings. The Judiciary does not have the right to make law only the Congress and state legislatures do. The ninth circuit is out of line because this case is outside their jurisdiction. The 10th Amendment states that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the PEOPLE! The ruling is out of line because they are trying to rule on a Community Practice which is outside their scope per the 10th Amendment

Ravenstar

[f.Christian]

Should title it...The Anatomy of Good/America vs. Tyranny/evil-lies!

[Amelia]

How will that happen if they see minority beliefs/rights being trumped/trampled by the majority? Such a thing is completely contrary to Constitutional ideals.

Now who has a problem with reading comprehension? I already addressed that. Just because things are not perfect does not mean we shouldn't strive for the ideal.

...so long as it is done slowly, and with the illusion that I might eventually, someday, have some say in whether it ever stops'? Ya mean, that kind of 'doing nothing'?

I'd like to see pretty much everything the government has done over the last 100 years be reversed (I don't have a problem with giving full citizenship rights to blacks and women, but other than that....)

Problem is, there aren't enough people who agree for a candidate that believes that to win. Sad, but true.

So yes, if my choices are between getting socialism quickly and getting it slowly I'll choose slowly - because right now, those are the choices.

You might keep in mind that if you're traveling south at 80 mph, you can't get to north at 80 mph without slowing down first.

[cva66snipe]

Folks, this is what we will see if Democrats stay in office.

No the fall of America is what we will see if socialist remain in office. To say that only the DEMs has socialist in it's ranks is foolish and will not address the issues nor will it address the problem. The problem and the solution is in post #138. Instead of 33 constitutionalist in the senate we have 33 socialist and they are in both parties. These 33 or less have inflicted the woes of this nation. The rest either oppose or follow their lead. A socialist is a socialist no matter who's party they claim. When we the sheeple start showing them the door the GOP will once again be a United Party. Keeping them on for committee seats is self defeating. THEY WILL STILL PUSH THEIR SOCIALIST AGENDA ABOVE ALL ELSE! FIRE THEM. ThEY ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS IN THIS FIGHT THEY WORK FOR THE OTHER SIDE.

If the GOP will not repect it's own principles neither will the DEMS respect the GOP as an adversary. Stop being enablers for socialist. Stop giving the GOP permission to take them into the party.

[rustbucket]

Nothing in previous law REQUIRED any child to say the pledge. YOU however are not satisfied with that. YOU want to take a voluntary pledge to a mandated prohibition based on a devout Atheist’s religious beliefs. That is an establishment of state religion. That is a direct violation of the Constitution.

Let's see if I can follow your logic. If monotheistic religion is not mentioned in the pledge, it is establishment of religion? My head hurts.

[tpaine]

So yes, if my choices are between getting socialism quickly and getting it slowly I'll choose slowly - because right now, those are the choices.


You might keep in mind that if you're traveling south at 80 mph, you can't get to north at 80 mph without slowing down first.
466 - Amelia

---

Good grief, choosing 'slow socialism', -- now theres a concept.

And try an old pilots trick on the other problem, Amelia.
--- You do a 80 MPH 'U' turn. - It works.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Where have I ever said I was against voluntary recitation?"

THEN WHY ARE YOU SITTING HERE COMPLAINING?

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on forced recitation of the Pledge in public schools, it is now purely voluntary.

[MEGoody]

"And before we continue this little charade, can you assure me personally that you yourself would not be offended were someone in your presence to substitute the word 'allah' in the Pledge"

So let 'em. Or let 'em just skip the words 'under God' or let 'em sit while everyone else says the pledge. Good grief! There are way too many people in this country desparately seeking a reason to be offended so they have a reason to whine.

[tpaine]

-- I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States Of America, and to the Constitutional Republics for which it stands.
One nation, one principle; - Life, Liberty, and Justice for all.

---

Could we all agree on a pledge like this one?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"who would take up arms tomorrow were the official phrase 'under Allah'...now, wouldn't they?"

We aren't discussing one's speculation on human behavior here. The majority of us here are asking for your Constitutional basis as to why you believe that the Pledge should not be said in schools at all, despite the fact that it does not establish a state religion.

By the way, when you quote the 1st Amendment, please include the Free Exercise Clause.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

It begins, "I pledge alligence to the flag...", not the way you had it.

Plus, why do spiritual incinuations have to shock a nation so much? Why is there so much phobia in this country over the issue of religion? It is quite ridiculous.

[MEGoody]

"Could we all agree on a pledge like this one?"

Probably not. Someone would find some reason to be offended by it. There's nothing wrong with the current pledge except for those who are searching desparately for a reason to be offended.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Ditto on that one. Why fix it? It isn't broken, cliche' of course, but true.

[rustbucket]

As a test, my son declined to participate one day. It became an on-going battle with the teacher, and the school administration, till the end of the school year (and his graduation). There was no disruption, no belligerence, no active dissension by my son, simply a decision to not go along with an empty ritual (which is the way it is treated by most of the other students).

The teacher claimed it was a disruption to the other students, sent him to the office, the principal tried to bully/coerce him to participate (my son said, 'You really don't want to talk to my dad about this.'), finally sent him back to class with the agreement that he would stand quietly --- that wasn't enough for the teacher, who still waxed apoplectic every morning, still manufactured disciplinary crises requiring administrative intervention.

The same sort of thing happened to me, though I was nowhere near as brave as your son. I was made to read the Bible out loud before the class. The well-meaning teacher knew I wasn't Christian, but the bulk of the students didn't. At this age (10th grade), I felt a great deal of peer pressure to conform and be one of the group, so I read the Bible.

No one that young should be put in the position of chosing whether to conform or be ostracized. I understand what the California guy's daughter is going through. Now days, I would simply refuse the teacher's instruction, and if she persisted I would take her to court. I wish I had done that when I was younger.

There were other teachers at my school who weren't so nice or well meaning about my lack of religion as the teacher who had me read the Bible. They sound like the teacher you mentioned.

[ContraryMary]

I'm with you!

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Question: Did you attend a public or a private school?

[RebelDawg]

Thank you Jim!

I know that I have been very critical of President Bush in the past but this ruling handed down by the 9th circuit court (as well as some incitefull posts by those who disagreed with me) has brought me back to the light!

Now don't expect me to go agreeing with every little thing that the President does. I still disagree with his immigration policies for one, but from now on you can count me in!

Thanks and God Bless the U.S.!