Posted on 06/27/2002 8:13:15 AM PDT by vannrox
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress. Where the phrase "under God" was inserted after the words "one nation" in the pledge of Allegance. The court said the phrase violates the so-called Establishment Clause in the Constitution that requires a "...separation of church and state..." The actual wording of the "Establishment Clause" is "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel that "...A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion..." . The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is "out of Step" with the Country Population as a whole, and is considered to be Liberal / Socialist in their interpertation of the law. In fact, Laurence Tribe possibly the most liberal lawyer in America stated, at a Senate committee hearing in December, that "international embarrassment" that could befall the country if "some rather liberal judge out in the 9th Circuit" were to involve that court in prosecuting terrorists.." In an article by Insight Magazine, they stated that "...No one can dispute that the 9th Circuit is the largest in the country. What is contested, however, is just how much of a "rogue court" it is, if at all. Conservatives long have charged that its reversal rates by the Supreme Court are disproportionately higher than the other appeals courts. "Twenty percent of the American population lives in the circuit in which the rule of law is regularly being challenged by the issuance of activist opinions by ideologically driven federal judges," says Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)..." in addition, they also concluded that "...According to dozens of legal scholars and former judicial clerks, the 9th Circuit has more than earned its reputation as a "runaway court." It has by far the highest overrule record since the federal judiciary was expanded in 1978. In one year, the 1996-1997 session, the Supreme Court reversed 27 of the 28 cases it considered from the 9th Circuit. This number is all the more arresting upon further examination, say both conservative and liberal legal analysts, because 17 of the cases were overturned by unanimous decisions. "When the Supreme Court overrules you unanimously, they are sending a message," says Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Given that today's Rehnquist court generally is considered moderate to conservative ? including liberal jurists such as Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ? these unanimous reversals are most revealing about the 9th Circuit's distemper and disrespect for the Supreme Court..."
Other decisions by this "activist" judicial college include such rulings as (the elitist belief) that the overwhelming voter-approved Three-Strikes rule be judged unconstitutional. The Legalization of Medical Marijuana, the free reign of Search and Seizure by the Federal and State Government, Gay rights, and other Liberal causes and efforts. For a time in the early eighties, Carter had appointed 15 of the 23 judges, many of whom were very liberal even by Carter standards, says Hellman, who has followed the court for more than 20 years. "That high concentration of fresh judges in the late seventies created a dynamic unique in the federal judiciary," Hellman tells Insight. Many of the new judges were reacting against the perceived conservative tilt of their older colleagues, and "as a group they created quite a blitz," Hellman continues. The result was that in the 1982-83 term, the 9th Circuit had 26 cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, 25 of which were reversed. ..." ..." If the Pickering battle is about drawing lines in the sand and establishing the tone for the Senate's role in advice and consent on presidential judicial nominees, then the nomination process indeed will be messy and protracted, say Capitol Hill aides. With Senate Democrats spoiling for ideological slugfests about judges, the problem of the 9th Circuit probably isn't about to go into remission. For those living under the 9th, the situation is a frustrating one. "We just want out," says a lawyer in Idaho's attorney general's office. "We don't care where. Just put us in another circuit." ..."
What is Going On in CALIFORNIA?
The Organizational Roots of the "Separation of Church and State".
A BlueBay Investigational Report.
By VannRox 27 June 2002
Posted 27 June 2002 to Free Republic for Commentary and discussion.
Note:
This report concerns the Wednesday June, 26 decision by the activist [reversed 19 out of 20 cases in the latest US Supreme Court session] and politically dominantly Socialist Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals, declaring the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional. This ruling has surprised and enraged many. Others, better versed in the ability to communicate and reason, are now presenting their appeals for reversal of the courts decision and the reasons and logic behind it.
I will not delve into this area of thought. Rather I wish to concentrate on the environment that created this situation where every American recites the term "Separation of Church and State" without realizing that this term is a fabricration and does not exist in our Constitution.
I wish to investigate the forces and the effort behind the push to eliminate the spiritual and religious attributes from our History; our past; our lives; our laws; our schools and our society. make no mistake, this effort did not happen as an effect of the normal course of events. It is a driven result, planned and strategied by a group of people determined to this end.
My investigations, while in no way complete and comprehensive, can prove and show how these waves of effort have used the tools of liberty to erode the pillars of our society.
SOME FACTS:
Efforts to control and reign in the court to be more in line with the Supreme Court decision process and more accountable to the Constitution has resulted in the need to review the size of the Court to more adequately reflect the region of its authority. To this end an on going effort has been launched by Congress to divide the court into two or more separate entities.
The Senate debated this issue excessively. Democrats almost uniformly and along partisan lines opposed this. The Democrats in the Senate felt that "...the large number of reversals by citing the sheer number of cases that the 9th Circuit considers, but it is the rate of reversal that is remarkable. Others suggest that the West Coast has more "aggressive and creative lawyering," with legal eagles testing untried and unorthodox arguments while the rest of the nation just watches, astonished..."
Conservatives argued that "...Tom Jipping of the Free Congress Foundation explains that of the 26 active judges on the bench in the 9th Circuit, 14 were appointed by Bill Clinton and three by Jimmy Carter. In fact, since the court was expanded in 1978 from 13 to 23 judges, it always has been dominated by Democratic appointees.
The large number of reversals by the Supreme Court is indicative of the political and philosphical leanings of the 9th Circuit is out of step with the Supreme Court and it's lower courts. In a heated Senate debate in 2000 about splitting the district, Sessions looked at the three-year span from 1996-1999 when the 9th Circuit was reversed on 54 of the 63 cases examined by the Supreme Court ? a reversal rate of 86 percent. The next-highest totals belonged to the 8th Circuit, which had 24 cases reviewed and 14 reversals. The 1999-2000 term saw a slight tapering off, with the Supreme Court reviewing 11 of the 9th Circuit cases and reversing eight of them. But that number was higher than any other circuit that year. In the most recent year for which figures are available, the 2000-2001 session, the Supreme Court considered 15 cases from the 9th Circuit, 11 of which it reversed.
Insight magazine stated in their March 2002 issue that "...While there are several methods for bringing a rogue circuit to heel, none appear very effective at present, which worries Senate Republicans. With only two vacancies, President George W. Bush can't expect to tip the balance of the 28-seat court by appointing a few conservative jurists. One long-discussed option would be to split the circuit into smaller and more manageable units, something "that ain't going to happen as long as the Dems control the Senate," according to a senior Republican aide.
The cause of this situation is the nomination of activist liberal Judges by a Democrat sponsored effort. This is well known to all. Indeed Hans Nichols writes "..."It used to be that the political battles occurred at the Supreme Court level," says one court watcher, "but now that's shifting, especially with Democrats in control of the Senate." Since Bush's election, Senate Republicans have noticed that Democrats are upping the ante on lower-court judges. Witness the bloody fight over Charles Pickering, a nominee for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who at press time still hadn't received a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee (see Fair Comment, March 11).
|
PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAN'T REQUIRE FLAG PLEDGE WITH 'UNDER GOD' IN IT, FEDERAL COURT RULES Decision Respects Freedom Of Conscience, Congress violated the constitutional separation of church and state when it passed a law adding the words "under God" to the Pledge to the Flag, and public school officials cannot pressure students to recite it, a federal appellate court has ruled. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held today that the 1954 congressional action incorporating religious language into the Pledge was an "impermissible endorsement of religion." "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical…to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect of religion," observed the court. Added the court, "The coercive effect of this policy is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren, and their understanding that they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school, their teacher and their fellow students." The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the court decision reflects an appropriate concern for the religious liberty rights of all Americans. "This decision shows respect for freedom of conscience," said Lynn. "You can be a patriotic American regardless of your religious belief or lack of religion. Our government should never coerce school children -- or anyone else -- to make a profession of religious belief. "America is an incredibly diverse country with some 2,000 different religions and denominations, as well as millions of Americans who profess no religion at all," continued Lynn. "Government actions should respect that diversity." Lynn noted that the Pledge of Allegiance was originally secular. Written in 1892 by a Baptist minister, the Pledge was recited for several decades without any religious references. "Today's ruling simply says that schools should return to the original Pledge," Lynn said. "There wasn't anything wrong with it before 1954. In fact, America survived the Great Depression and won two World Wars with a completely secular Pledge. "Members of Congress made a mistake when they added religious language to the flag pledge," concluded Lynn. "It changed an appropriate patriotic exercise into a religious ritual in which many Americans cannot in good conscience participate." The challenge to religious language in the pledge was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a California atheist who objected to the pledge recitation at his daughter's elementary school in the Elk Grove Unified School District. Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote today's Newdow v. U.S. Congress decision, was appointed to the federal court by President Richard Nixon. Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
|
June 26, 2002 Contact:
|
AU's Legal Analysis Of Effect Of Adler v. Duval County School Board On Graduation Prayer
The Supreme Court recently declined to review a decision in which the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Duval County School Board policy permitting the graduating senior class to decide whether to have a student deliver a two-minute "message" at graduation. AU's analysis discusses why school districts outside the 11th Circuit should be extremely wary about adopting policies like the one in Duval County (posted 1/2/02).
Ten Commandments Display In Alabama Judicial Building Violates Constitution
A Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building violates the Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed in federal district court today by two civil liberties groups (posted 10/30/01).
Alabama Lawmaker Unveils Unconstitutional 'Ten Commandments Defense Act'
Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-Ala.) today unveiled the "Ten Commandments Defense Act," a bill that would allow government posting of the Decalogue in public buildings and order the federal courts to find the religious displays constitutional (posted 3/7/02).
AU's Field Department Needs Your Help
Religious freedom and the separation of church and state are under attack. Be a voice for religious liberty and help us defend the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Two lines of reasoning came together here. One is that the Pledge of Allegiance has now become a prayer, simply because the words, "under God", have been included. The other is that, because schools are an agency by extension of the Federal government, that reference to God must be expressly forbidden.
But a wholly different outcome is that since school children may no longer pledge allegiance, they cannot declare their loyality and fidelity to the principles that bind the United States into one nation.
Was it not bad enough that the World Trade Center was knocked down? Must the rest of America be made meaningless as well? The US Flag is what brought us together that day, and denying ANYBODY the right to declare their love of country (by denying the Pledge of Allegiance as a legitimate expression of that belief) is to surrender to the external forces who clearly do NOT love the flag.
I consider this to be at the very least a dubious assertion. Just because a law enjoys majority support doesn't make it inherently Constitutional. Badly written law is still badly written law whether 5% of the country supports it or 95% of the country supports it. Extrapolating from your argument one must conclude that Brown vs. Board Of Education was a mistake and Plessy vs. Fergeson should never have been overturned.
In this case from what I've read of the decision, I think the 9th Circuit is factually accurate in its reasoning, particularly if you take into account what Eisenhower said when he signed it.
Would you consider it a breach of the Establishment Clause if the Pledge used "under Allah" instead of "under God"? Seriously. If the answer is yes then you have to explain to me the difference between the two.
Anyone who complains that this decision only strengthens the hand of the Christianity haters or advances their cause needs to stop and think about that concept for a minute because they have just legitimized the 9th Circuit's argument that the Pledge in its current form is not religion neutral.
That said, I have to say that I am not in favor of this decision. Though I do believe the outcome to be correct, in all honesty this case wasn't worth the effort put into it. Getting that nit picky over the Establishment Clause is overkill in my book. The only thing it will do is get a bunch of people riled for no good reason. We all know the Supreme Court will reverse the decision.
I'm more or less agnostic but I have no problem with the Plegde in its current form. But it does violate the Establishment Clause. But I consider it to be a "harmless violation". No harm, no foul.
Petition to the President of the United States and Members of Congress
I speak as an American citizen. The recent decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco where the Pledge of Allegiance was ruled Unconstitutional is an attack on America by way of the legal system. We are indeed "One Nation Under God."To declare that anyone who pledges allegiance to the Flag of our Country is breaking the law is to declare the President of the United States and every member of Congress to be law breakers.
It has become abundantly clear that the two judges that voted for this must be impeached and removed from office. Please use the authority that you have been invested with and immediately vote to impeach judges Stephen Reinhardt and Alfred Goodwin.
To sign the Petition, click HERE.
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.
