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.
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."
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.
I hope she's right. It'll be the first time.
"...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,
He wants us to see his essay on MichaelSavage.com and wants our help.......!!
He wants us to see his essay on MichaelSavage.com and wants our help.......!!
If you can provide the following, I will begin to believe the Pledge is unconstitutional for having "under God":I'm learning a lot here, and admit, it's not "my issue". Lot of knowledgable people here about the Constitution and the pledge.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
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.
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.
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.