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.

[Mad Dawgg]

"9TH CIRCUIT COURT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

If this is allowed to stand then would the last one leaving Please turn out the lights...

Cause the Party is Over...

[Kevin Curry]

This decision ought to warm your shrivelled up, bone-dry raisin of a heart.

Atheism is on the march and its high priests exult. The Republic is in retreat.

"Our Consititution was made for a moral and religious people. It is totally unsuited to any other." John Adams.

[mhking]

I wonder if Newdow moved to California because he knew his best shot was in the Ninth Circuit.

Based on his threat as noted in that old article, I wouldn't be surprised one bit...

[ZULU]

Its not unbelievable, actually.

We have allowed the Courts to gete away with legislating from the bench in interpreting "shall make no establishment of religion", in its very loosest sense. This is just one more progression from earlier decisions against prayer in schools, nativity scenes, etc. The Courts have interpreted that phrase to mean any action in the slightest referring to God or religion in public life, an interpretation clearly at odds with the intent of the framers of the Consitution, and traditional American interpretation of that phrase. "....shall make no establishment of religion" clearly refers to the act of establishing an "official" church as was the case in Europe at the time, i.e. the Church of England, the Catholic Church in Spain, etc.

What we have done is to allow the federal courts, through the unconstitutional power of judicial review, to tyrannize the majority to the benefit of a small selct minority. In effect, the Courts have conspired with the Atheists and Agnostics to establish Atheism as the official religion of this country, thus violating their own thought processes. Since they are a collection of elitist, biased boobs, I guess they could care less about this inconsistency.

Since the majority of legislators are attorneys, and hence officers of the court, they too, are in violation of the separation of powers concept in the Constitution, and are not likely to address abuses of the Courts, which are run by their professional associates who are merely attorneys with political connections.

Are they going to arrest and imprison people for reciting the pledge of allegiance in schools? Its time the process of judicial review in situations like this be given the proper attention it deserves, i.e., it should simply be ignored through "popular nullification".

[Babsig]

Sen Daschle is now speaking to make a resolution against the ruling. "This decision is nuts" per Daschle. I guess the phone lines are jammed at the Senate. "The Senate will intervene against this ruling" - Daschle. Senate will rule today on this.

[phasma proeliator]

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

you're not worth "new" insults.
you wouldn't understand them anyway.

[Sabertooth]

So how did that refute what I said?

Rather thoroughly.

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.

What you're failing to grasp, inspite of what I posted to you earlier, is that the only rights we have are "unalienable." That's what distinguishes them from privileges. The Founders understood this, you don't.

Rights come from God, priveleges come from government. Privleges can be revoked by government, rights cannot. Rights cannot be revoked, because we are endowed with them by our Creator.

The Founders held some truths to be self-evident. That the logical conclusions of those self-evident truths is not apparent to you, is apparent.

[Helix]

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Unless, of course, you are a gubment skoolteacher...

[meyer]

Its time for a "Pledge of Allegiance" freep. How about if we get a ton of people to gather around the Judge's house and chant the pledge all night until it makes them crazy.

Any California Freepers?

Disclaimer: I'm in Tennessee and probably wouldn't be able to make it. :^)

[tpaine]

I didn't want to ask that question. - Thanks.

[Mo1]

Ari is on FOX NEWS .. Bush saying this ruling does not sit well with the President

[mhking]

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

Oh, OK...

"One nation, under God, or gods, or not, and I'm sorry if we weren't supposed to mention you at all?"

[PhiKapMom]

Pres Bush's reaction: This ruling is ridiculous. The view of the WH that is a wrong decision and the DOJ is reviewing now to redress this issue. This did not sit well with the President of the United States. Most Americans have faith in God and are going to express it according to Ari!

[Hacksaw]

tpaine, is it just me, or are you being an ass again?

What do you mean "again"? :)

[Howlin]

Try not to be so damn picky. You knew exactly what I meant; you're just contrary about every single thing.

[rudypoot]

Congress should intervene and start some IMPEACHMENT trials ASAP.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Thank God for President Bush. Thank God.

[Howlin]

By the way, a majority of the people in states with the MAJORITY of electoral votes voted for George W. Bush.

[Action-America]

I certainly don't think that the "under God" phrase is unconstitutional and I am just as certain that this ruling will be overturned.

However, I did hear one very poignant point made a little while ago.  We should be looking for things that will draw people together, rather than divide people into smaller groups.  Both parties have been guilty of that strategy for many years.  The 1954 addition of that phrase to the Pledge, though entirely constitutional, was indeed a dividing point that draws attention to a difference between people.  The people who want to bring down the United States want to divide us into as many smaller groups as possible, so they can slip in and take over, while we fight among ourselves.  Rich/poor, black/white, married/single, straight/queer, old/young, smokers/non-smokers, Christian/Muslim, religious/atheist and the list goes on.

It doesn't matter if the "under God" folks are in an 80% majority, it has the effect of cutting out 20% of the people.  It's 20% here, 10% there, 5% somewhere else, over and over again, until most well-intentioned Americans are fighting among themselves, over semantics, while the bad guys are ripping our Constitution to shreds.

I personally like the Pledge just the way it is.  There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about the "under God" phrase.  But, if taking it out would help bring us together, then I would not waste time fighting it.  We are letting an argument about semantics distract us from the important issues.  This whole argument is like arguing about the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.  The fact that the deck chairs are all against the rail is a sign that the ship is sinking, but moving the deck chairs back against the bulkhead is not going to help keep the ship from sinking.  Similarly, this attack on the Pledge is a sign that our ship of State is sinking.  But, while we argue over this symptom, the ship continues to sink.

Look at how many posts this has generated and then look at how few posts there are on issues surrounding violations of our Constitutional guarantees that might effect our life span, income, how we spend our money or even send us to jail, like gun grabs, hate crimes legislation, tax reform, campaign finance reform, USA Patriot, etc.  Let's don't get sidetracked.

 

[Dimensio]

is that the same as an argument from history/experience?

Not at all -- appeal to tradition is typically done when arguing methodolgy; you argue that a method should not change because it has "always been done that way".

Appeal to the consequences is citing what might be considered the undesirable "consequences" of a proposition being true or false -- ie, there being no gods means that there are no unalienable rights -- and using that as "evidence" for the truth value of the proposition.