9TH CIRCUIT COURT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Fox News ^

[MissAmericanPie]

Yet another politically activist court, something needs to be done to be able to remove judges.

[d14truth]

What % of people get cut off when we 'Pledge Allegiance to America'? All the non-US citizens, or those who would rather pledge allegiance to Saddam, Cuba, or the 'Almighty Dollar'. Take the 'sensitivity' to those who aren't 'sensitive'. Just see how much they care about your 'feelings' that they disagree with.

How many people are 'cut off' from the fruits of their labors when redistributionist taxes are levied against them by 60% of the population? Doesn't seem like too many defend the 'rich'.

[Hemlock]

I find it ironic that Newdow, when asked on Fox News whether he feared for his safety, said he was "praying." He immediately caught his error and said he was "sorry." Like most atheists, this guy actually believes in God. This guy isn't an atheist. What we have here is a God hater.

[AmishDude]

Shelby is a (relatively new) Republican from Alabama. He's got some seniority, so I'd guess it's him. IT could be Jeff Sessions.

[Mr. Wright]

TO ALL PARENTS IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT - DO THIS - TELL YOUR CHILDREN TO DEFY THE COURTS RULING, STAND UP, RECITE THE PLEDGE, INCLUDE "UNDER GOD", THE TIME HAS COME TO DEFY, DEFY, DEFY THE COURTS RULING AND TELL THEM TO GO TO HELL!

[Howlin]

They cannot possbily let Bush have all the airtime on this tonight; Bush will be interviewed first.....and he will say "This is why we need our judges approved."

IMO, not much to say after that, except, "I don't like it either."

[Jhoffa_]

One caveat: it has to be somebody SANE, okay? :-)

Oh right.. Now, where am I supposed to find.. ..

[LarryLied]

Well I'm sick of these Athiests forcing THEIR religion down MY thoat. It is a religion with them, they go out and evangelize, they don't allow people of other religions the freedom to practice, it is a religion and they are trying to impose it on the entire country.

Don't think it has ever been used against them but the Supreme Court did say Secular Humanism is a religion. Believe the case was Torcaso v. Watkins. We could, in theory, turn this back on them and kick out all the healy feely garbage they teach in government schools.

[Kerberos]

"So you are supportive of the ruling today?"

Actually, as a country, I think we have many more pressing issues that we could be spending our time on today.

[gunshy]

If you believe in God, the liberals cannot do anything to change that. If you believe in this country, you must take on the fight against liberalism and socialism in every forum where you can espouse conservativism. The thing that liberals hate the most is the truth, not my truth, or your truth, but the absolute truth. If you are a true believer, you already have God on your side, you don't have to advertise.

[B Knotts]

You can install it in your home directory, as far as I know. Just FYI. I don't want your sysadmin coming down on
me, though. :-P

[lonestar]

Freedom of religion in the US today means that you are free to practice religion as long as noone else notices.

Or, as long as it doesn't include Jesus Christ.

[Sir Gawain]

Am not.

[hobbes1]

Actually you make a good point. I bet whoever argued pro pledge didn't (to his eternal shame ) use it, however.

[Viva Le Dissention]

The three unalienable rights mentioned in the DOI are all pretty broad philosophical topics, so I'll tackle them as such.

Let's say I'm in prison, to be executed by the Government for a crime against society. Despite my imprisonment, I am still the master of my own destiny--life--because I can kill myself at anytime I please. My right to my life (or my own destiny, if you prefer) can't be taken away.

Liberty is a bit trickier, because governments can obviously take away the liberty of its citizens, as it did even in my above example. Even so, as above, I still am the ultimate arbitor of my own fate--I have the freedom to decide my destiny, which is liberty is its most base sense (and only in its most base sense, I concede).

Pursuit of Happiness is the one least likely to be taken away by a government, simply because it's not tangible in any sense at all. If something isn't tangible, it can't be taken away in any real sense.

Freedom of religion though, includes free exercise of religion, which can obviously be taken away. It's not a vague or broad concept. Heck, up until the early part of the 20th century, Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't practice their religion as they saw fit, because it called for standing on street corners or going door-to-door and preaching the word, or whatever it is that they do. Only recent (in the past 70 years) has the Court looked upon this and has allowed it as acceptable.

The right of Religion is an unalienable right, but not free excersise thereof, as is guaranteed in our Constitution. God may giveth, but the Government taketh away.

[Tired of Taxes]

I think you're all missing the point. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it state that a person has a right to a taxpayer-funded education. Yet, the government is forcibly taking money from people to fund these indoctrination centers. Now, if a teacher - who is essentially a paid representative of the government - is permitted to LEAD a class in a prayer (i.e. "pledge" containing the words "under God" that were never in the original version), then the government is promoting and endorsing religion and indoctrinating children in religion without regard to a parent's wishes and without the approval of nonreligious taxpayers.

Last I checked, the nonreligious weren't exempt from paying school taxes.

[mindprism.com]

What irked you about that I'll never know.

What irked me is the idea that someone on FR doesn't understand the difference between rights and powers in regard to the US Constitution.

The Constitution doesnt HAVE TO say "there must be seperation of church and state" and the Constitution really doesnt have to even HAVE the BOR on it.

Why?

Because the US Gov is only allowed to do what we have given it power to do. Since you cannot find where we give the Fed power to restrict speech or religion or guns -- they cannot DO IT.

I will admit that the BOR provides some important 'procedural' reminders on how the gov pursues its other powers, but as I said - rights are not fully listed (there are too many to contemplate) while powers are fully listed (but grossly violated via the rape of the commerce clause).

Do you have the right to bear children? To smoke? To self-medicate? To ride a bicycle on public property? To operate a automobile on public roads in a noncommercial fashion?

Do you have a right to do business with whom you please? Do you have a right to exchange your labor for money and/or goods?

The answer to all of these is yes, but don't rely on the courts and the law to respect that- they simply DONT. But that doesnt change the REALITY that those are your rights, and as rights they cannot be taxed, infringed, or even surrendered by you.

They are rights ALL PEOPLE HAVE, not just Americans, not just citizens or people 'in America'. All people.

Thats why the fuss over God, via the Declaration of Independence.

[PhiKapMom]

It was Jeff Sessions -- fantastic speech!

[Liz]

Unconstitutional? All I have to say is:

" I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic
for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with libery and justice for all. "

[tpaine]

"after being removed a time or two - you'd think he'd learn, -- "
723 - PP

---

'Removed' is banished, - a 'time out' is petty bullshit.