CALL SPEAKER HASTERT: 202-224-3121: MAKE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE UNDER GOD PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION

6/27/02 | FR Action Project

[Liz]

Do this now. No delay.

Call Speaker of the House Hastert now - 202-224-3121

MESSAGE: Speaker Hastert, make the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag under God part of the US Constitution.

Introduce a Pledge of Allegiance under God amendment now.

[Liz]

The amendment needs to say: " I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and
to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. "

[Liz]

..................please ping your list...........

[Liz]

...........please ping your list............

[Liz]

.........please ping your list..............

[Liz]

bump

[Liz]

.........please ping your list..........

[PJ-Comix]

This court ruling will be overturned. No doubt. However, adding "Under God" to the Pledge via Constitutional Amendment would be a case of Constitution Clutter. I think we have about enough Amendments to the Constitution (actually 2 too many since the Prohibition Amendment and the Prohibition Repeal Amendment were 2 amendments that should never have been in there). Okay, flame away but I don't like to see Constitution Clutter. And the lower court ruling will be repealed so such an amendment is superfluous.

[woofer]

Why clutter up a grand document as our Constitution with this? Won't fly. Best thing to come from this is that it will make people look up and take notice of what is being foisted upon them from judges that want to legislate from the benck. And they'll also notice that the vast majority of those judges are uber-liberal.

like the phrase "In God we trust" on the coin of the realm, the phrase "One Nation, under God" in the pledge will be cemented by an act of congress (law). Same as the National Anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner" is such now by an act of law from congress.

[Liz]

This court ruling will be overturned. No doubt.

No doubt. And then another court and another disaffected person will tackle it......and so on, and so forth, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

We need to imbed this in the US Constitution now. Call Speaker Hastert 202-224-3121.

[TxBec]

One nation under God

Y'know...Old Osama said he would hit us where we least expect. We were suckerpunched against yesterday. Think about this.. This is the 2nd time since 9/11 that both parties joined on the steps of the Whitehouse to show their patriotism. We were hit again just like we were on 9/11. This time from within.

[Liz]

We were suckerpunched against yesterday. Think about this. This is the 2nd time since 9/11 that both parties joined on the steps of the White House to show their patriotism. We were hit again just like we were on 9/11. This time from within.

Thanks for the inspiring graphic and the support.

[Liz]

We need to imbed the pledge of allegiance under God in
the US Constitution now. Call Speaker Hastert 202-224-3121.

[philman_36]

A Constitutional Amendment should concern the functioning of government or act as a restriction upon government.
This is opening the floodgates wide open and people are going to rush headlong into it, giving no thought to long term consequences, reacting merely upon emotion.

Wise up people...you're acting like the herd you are!

[woofer]

I find it laughable that a call to place this or that 'a part of our Constitution' goes out whenever someone's feelings are hurt by the actions of others. You'll recall the same blathering about the flag-burning issue and the ERA (although the ERA almost made it, scary thought!).

Please keep in mind that the Constitution is not a set of laws, but the guide for law-makers to follow. Make all the laws you want. They are only as good as the Constitution allows them to be. If legislation can not stand the test of any article or admendment of the Constittution, then it isn't a law after all.

The knee-jerk calls for protection for something by mentioning it as a protected something in the Constitution appalls me more than what the judges ruled (as opposed to the judges ajudicating).

BTW, the guy, Mewcom, that won this Civil Suit also has one against the Treasury to remove the phrase "In God we trust" from US coinage and Federal Reserve Notes (commonly known as 'The Dollar"). Betchya he don't win that one.

[hobbes1]

IF only the 9/11 hijackers had targeted the 9th Circuit, while in session. /onlyhalfjoking

[philman_36]

My unconventionality.

[Kermit]

I agree with you PJ. What law is the pledge supposed to be? Two, there is no requirement to say the pledge now, will a Constitutional Amendment then make it a requirement? Three, there's no need, things are moving along nicely. The US Senate voted 99-zip against this ruling, you even have Dashole out there on this. Let's keep this in the political realm.

If you really what to improve things, call your Congresscritter to IMPEACH the two judges, who agreed to this idiocy. That would be a much better lesson and warning to idiotic Black Robes than a Constitutional amendment. No?

[Liz]

Betchya he don't win that one.

How could he lose with people like you around?

[hobbes1]

Not necessary. For starters you don;t amend the Constitution for trifling matters, especially one that will be OVERTURNED.

Secondly, the School district should just substitute something Better, in the meantime..(even though this ruling will not take effect for several months....)

you know Like this....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

[hobbes1]

Woofer is right Liz. Sorry.