9TH CIRCUIT COURT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Fox News ^

[Recovering_Democrat]

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

[Oldeconomybuyer]

9th Circuit approved Pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to the paternalistic anglo colonial warmogerning symbol of the Former Lands of Native tribespeople, and to this occupying forces for which it stands, one diverse group of homos, homeless, stoners, peta, naacp, lulac, and various alternative lifestyles, trees and animals under mother nature, indivisible except for white men, with total freedom to do whatever without concesquences for all, dude"

(from the Internet, not original)

[rudypoot]

Figures. These judges read the US Constitution with rosy-red commie glasses.

[Constitution Day]

Preamble to North Carolina Constitution:

We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.

[Helix]

Amazing. You mean a Democrat is actually able to understand the phrase "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof"?

[watchin]

I've never taken a course on logic (wow, is that an opening for a flame, or what?) - but is that the same as an argument from history/experience?

Nations that have rejected God as the foundation for human rights have historically - sucked. It's predictable - unless you have a idealistic view of human nature.

[Viva Le Dissention]

So how did that refute what I said?

And freedom of religion is a right specifically mentioned in our Constitution, a right "incorporated" by the US Supreme Court, and not in any way unalienable, as seen throughout history, as even seen in our country.

Government has chosen to endorse religion in this case. The Courts have struck them down. Sorry that you don't like it, but it's only the things that are disliked that are protected by the Constitution. Popular speech and popular religions don't need protecting--just the unpopular things.

[Miss Marple]

Preamble to the Constitution of the State of Indiana (1816):

TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.

The phrase ALMIGHTY GOD is in all caps in the original. I guess my ancestors wanted to make sure someone got the message!

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks -- someone had told me he was a Reagan appointee that dissented. This is even better! Candy Crowley on CNN said this is ignighting the base of the Republicans all over the Country and Hastert has come out dissing daschle for not allowing common sense judges to be confirmed. She said it is a perfect campaign issue for Republicans and it doesn't make a difference what the RATS say because it is the liberal 9th circuit court in SF.

[phasma proeliator]

who are you?"

what the hell is that?

what would you deem an appropriate answer to that most intelligent question?

you're still here - that's amazing - don't you think? How many time have you been 'put in purgatory' anyway?

[Michael2001]

We definitely have some very stupid people in some very high powered positions.

[mhking]

"Back home again, in Indiana..."

I'll be up there in a few weeks for our annual sojourn to the northlands...

[Protagoras]

So Al Gore should've been president since he got more votes, right?

Touche

We don't live in a ochlocracy, thank God.

[On Alert]

While I respect your point of view. I disagree. If it were just about favoring the majority then, assuming the minority care, why dont we just add an amendment to include all other religions?

[NeoCrusade]

I would say that you would be right in the cases of governments that have actively suppressed religion. Big difference.

[mhking]

If it were just about favoring the majority then, assuming the minority care, why dont we just add an amendment to include all other religions?

"One nation, under God, or gods, or not?"

[TxBec]

One nation under God

[tpaine]

Give your sour grapes a rest, dude.

-- Get over being bested in a debate, -- when? -- Must have been months ago. - And get some new insults too.

[scalia_#1]

We need to use the obstruction of judicial nominees by the DemocRATS and this court case in every Republican Senate campaign as an example of why we need Republicans in charge of the Senate so that President Bush's nominees who can read the Constitution can be approved.

Absolutely! We haven't had a real issue that defines the importance of judicial nominees, until today. As much as Daschle--and even Leahy--might try to avoid this opinion, it will be the rallying cry against their obstruction of Bush's picks.

[DrCarl]

>No, only one has rights, the one who wanted to establish athiesm as a religion. The rest of us have had our rights removed. The new religion of state is Athiest.

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Dimensio]

Don't forget, have an apology for gods that might take offense at such a casual mention.