Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

9TH CIRCUIT COURT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Fox News ^

Posted on 06/26/2002 11:25:21 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat

UNBELIEVABLE. BREAKING ON FOX: SF APPEALS COURT SAYS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ENDORSES RELIGION, AND IS THEREBY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


TOPICS: Announcements; Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Alaska; US: Arizona; US: California; US: Hawaii; US: Idaho; US: Montana; US: Nevada; US: Oregon; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuitcourt; michaeldobbs; pledgeofallegiance; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,161-1,1801,181-1,2001,201-1,220 ... 1,461-1,477 next last
To: BMCDA
Hey, I merely stated that a generic group of people who hold a certain illogical position are stupid, I never stated that said descriptor applied to any particular FReepers or even that it applied to any at all :)
1,181 posted on 06/26/2002 6:01:36 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1180 | View Replies]

To: katya8
YOU ARE AN AMAZINGLY IGNORANT.

If you can provide the following, I will begin to believe the Pledge is unconstitutional for having "under God":

1) historical evidence that "under God" is unconstitutional *evidence from the founding to the year 1900 in a continuous stream of similar attitudes against it*
2) judicial precedents from the same time period, both at the state and national level
1,182 posted on 06/26/2002 6:02:19 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: CecilRhodesGhost
If you can provide the following, I will begin to believe the Pledge is unconstitutional for having "under God":

1) historical evidence that "under God" is unconstitutional *evidence from the founding to the year 1900 in a continuous stream of similar attitudes against it*
2) judicial precedents from the same time period, both at the state and national level
1,183 posted on 06/26/2002 6:03:24 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
If you can provide the following, I will begin to believe the Pledge is unconstitutional for having "under God":

1) historical evidence that "under God" is unconstitutional *evidence from the founding to the year 1900 in a continuous stream of similar attitudes against it*
2) judicial precedents from the same time period, both at the state and national level
1,184 posted on 06/26/2002 6:03:55 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Who Named These Judges?

Bill Clinton's appointees do dominate the court and steer its leftist agenda. He named 14 of the 9th Circuit's 24 "active" judges, court documents reveal. However, none of the three judges involved in this decision are Clintonites.

Richard Nixon appointed Goodwin, and Jimmy Carter appointed concurring Justice Stephen Reinhardt. G.H.W. Bush appointed the dissenting judge, Ferdinand F. Fernandez.

In the nation's first ruling of its kind, the appeals court said that when President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 1954 legislation, he wrote that "millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that pupils may not be compelled to say the pledge. But the appeals panel claimed that any classroom pledges, even if students refuse to participate, are unconstitutional, an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting."

"Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," the two San Francisco judges fretted.

In a partial dissent, Justice Fernandez said Goodwin and Reinhardt went too far in trying "to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."

1,185 posted on 06/26/2002 6:04:59 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288; tpaine
The only thing that you will jog from my memory of tpaine is that he is a crank and a malcontent and I just ignore him.

1,186 posted on 06/26/2002 6:06:15 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1177 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
I have a question. I feel that seperation of Church and State means no establishment of one religion. That means forcing someone to follow a religious practice. How does saying "Under God" establish religion? It just makes those who don't believe in God unhappy. But just because a group of people object to a line doesn't mean it establishes a religion.
1,187 posted on 06/26/2002 6:07:47 PM PDT by baseballfanjm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: another cricket
She was not being forced to say it she was not even being asked to stay in the room while others said it.

That is not his position. I'm not sure if I agree with him or not, but I certainly see his argument.

This mans beef is that it is being said at all.

That sounds like your opinion. It certainly is not what I heard him say on FOX news this afternoon.

1,188 posted on 06/26/2002 6:09:38 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Nina Totenberg (cough) said that when the full Circuit Court sits, they'll toss this higher than a hot tamale and it will never make it to the Supremes.

I hope she's right. It'll be the first time.

1,189 posted on 06/26/2002 6:10:13 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1185 | View Replies]

To: baseballfanjm
It just makes those who don't believe in God unhappy.

It implies the belief in the existence of some God, which has theistic and thus religious connotations. Some people -- myself included -- would rather the government keep silent on matters of divine entities and leave it up to individuals. There are other people who do believe in a god who may feel that the name "God" is a sacred name and not something to be touted about in a nationalistic socialistic "pledge" to a graven image.
1,190 posted on 06/26/2002 6:14:43 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Why would it hit the full circuit? I thought that the case was remanded back to the district court.
1,191 posted on 06/26/2002 6:15:32 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1189 | View Replies]

Comment #1,192 Removed by Moderator

To: Dimensio
Because only a three-member panel saw it, not the full court. They probably didn't even know about it since people who monitor the court didn't know this suit was coming up.
1,193 posted on 06/26/2002 6:18:46 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1191 | View Replies]

To: FF578
Great post.

"...They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism."

That's their intent.

Cordially,

1,194 posted on 06/26/2002 6:19:39 PM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1026 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
According to what I have read elsewhere, only students that live in the states covered by the 9th District are bound to this ruling. A court like this can't order a nationwide ruling.
1,195 posted on 06/26/2002 6:20:01 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: justshe
Californians had EVERYTHING to do with this. They started the fruitcake liberalism of the "new era" overshadowing their New England brethren. That entire state is occupied like Ethopia was by the Italians; people who don't belong, doing nothing that makes any sense, and taking the rights (and guns I might emphasize) away from the "normal" people who have a clue. That's why we are terrified down here in Florida! The nuts from Malibu are moving here, and why? Because your taxes are too high! Because we have a nice enviroment! Because we don't have Grayout Davis! And last but not least, IT'S FERTILE GROUND FOR THESE (Word deemed unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit) damn liberals to corrupt my beautiful state!!!!!!
1,196 posted on 06/26/2002 6:20:54 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1167 | View Replies]

To: Diamond; All
Michael Davage made a Cameo on his vacation and is LIVID!!!!!

He wants us to see his essay on MichaelSavage.com and wants our help.......!!

1,197 posted on 06/26/2002 6:21:19 PM PDT by LiveFreeOrDie2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1194 | View Replies]

To: Diamond; All
Michael Savage made a Cameo on his vacation and is LIVID!!!!!

He wants us to see his essay on MichaelSavage.com and wants our help.......!!

1,198 posted on 06/26/2002 6:21:43 PM PDT by LiveFreeOrDie2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1194 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
If you can provide the following, I will begin to believe the Pledge is unconstitutional for having "under God":

1) historical evidence that "under God" is unconstitutional *evidence from the founding to the year 1900 in a continuous stream of similar attitudes against it*

2) judicial precedents from the same time period, both at the state and national level

I'm learning a lot here, and admit, it's not "my issue". Lot of knowledgable people here about the Constitution and the pledge.

Personally, I like the words, and don't feel like we're "imposing" religion because the two words are bland and general.

But some people feel otherwise. they feel "imposed" by these words, which a school, apparently, tells its kids to say (Still working through this one). God is a religious concept, so the Constitution would be relevant here. No one's saying it isn't.

"Under God" was added in the 1950's. People seemed to be satisfied with the Pledge before.

As for the laws, you'll know more than me. For one, we will learn plenty from others because there will be plenty of analyses by lawyers, everybody. Just a hunch. :)

This sure has hit a nerve. Congress denounced a court decision, is there precedent for that? And on the same day it was printed! Had they read it? Why not wait a few days? I think, besides the issue itself, it has much to do with the internet.

1,199 posted on 06/26/2002 6:26:54 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1184 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Most parents willingly send their children to public schools

You are delusional. As usual. Most parents send their children to government schools because they are forced at gunpoint to pay for it even if they do not want to send them there. Let parents opt out of paying for government schools and see where they send their kids then. Perhaps a few delusional people like you will still send their kids there, 5% at most. Liberals like you mostly.

and the best of those parents teach their children to stand up for what they beieve in.

LOL, National socialism?

Mine did for me, I did for my kids and my kids will do the same for my grandkids.

You learned to advocate thuggery and I'm sure you have passed the hate on to your children and grandchildren. The bible told us that the sins would be visited on future generations. You are living proof.

Compulsary schooling is immoral. Blah, blah, blah, same sh4t different day. I repeat public schools are the public square. Care to address that point?

Care to address the morality of compulsory education? Oh yeah, you did. Your argument was,"Blah, Blah, Blah. Same shit different day. Great argument, same as all of your other arguments. Moronic.

Government schools are not the "public square", whatever the hell that means. They are liberal indoctronation centers. You are a liberal, that's why you love them.

Compulsary schooling was never supported by Jefferson or Madison. Same strawman, different day.

Do you even know what a strawman is? Goofs like you say anything you don't agree with is a strawman.

Please cite one place in their vast writings where Jefferson or Madison advocated complusory education. If not, you are wrong as usual.

Compulsory education is your strawdog.

Clearly you don't know the meaning of the term.

1,200 posted on 06/26/2002 6:28:48 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,161-1,1801,181-1,2001,201-1,220 ... 1,461-1,477 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson