How is the "under God" unconstitutional?

6/27/02 | myself

[rwfromkansas]

If you think the Pledge is unconstituional, refute all of that, please.

[rwfromkansas]

bump

[DoughtyOne]

the Case of the Freeper FRiva Feva is under scrutiny - super-sleuths are welcomed
come resolve the way to yesterday's Target Post, you're not out of the running yet
win your registration fees to the FRive Las Vegas Conference if you dare

[eFudd]

The pledge is not in the constitution nor is it refered to in the constitution nor is the Federal Government given the specific right to create a pledge.

See Ammendment 10.

[scholar]

How could an informed FReeper possibly think that The Pledge is unconstitutional?

[traditionalist]

The Federal government does not mandate that public school students recite it. Public schools are still, mostly, under state jurisdiction, and the saying of the pledge of allegence is a state and local policy. Hence under the 10th Amendment, it is perfectly constitutional.

[FreeTally]

I sometimes think that there are a couple dozen freepers here who could argue these types of cases before a court better than the highest paid lawyer.

MAKE the court explain how something can be "unconstitutional" when such acts, laws or expressions were made and done by those who WROTE the constitution.

I agree with those who say there were flaws in the constitution(slavery, voting, etc), but those are on a different scale then "religious" things that courts rule on these days.

[traditionalist]

You should also point out that the phrase "separation of Church and State" appears nowhere in the Constitution. That phrase is Jefferson's invention, and he had no role in the framing of the constitution.

All the constitution says is that "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

[FreeTally]

The Federal government does not mandate that public school students recite it. Public schools are still, mostly, under state jurisdiction, and the saying of the pledge of allegence is a state and local policy.

In deed, and its not even mandatory in most States.

Hence under the 10th Amendment, it is perfectly constitutional.

Which, as we all know, does not allow the federal government any say in this issue. Congress has made no law here.

[smith288]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Fran just ruled that the Pledge of
Allegience is unconstitutional because it has the word "God" in it.

Now, to clear up any confusion, there is no law "separating the church and
state". There is a law however saying "Congress shall make no law
respecitng any established religion".

God is used by 3 of the 4 major religions that come to mind. Jews,
Christians and Muslims. Muslims call God, Allah which means God in arab so
it really is no different. There is no specific preference to any certain
religion and the Pledge of Allegience is not requiered by law to be uttered
but is optional. You may even omit parts at which you do not agree with.
I choose "for Liberty and Justice for all" for reasons I would rather not
go into. Maybe another time.

This is an outright attack on the very foundation our nation stands upon.
The Supreme Court begins each session with "God save the United States and
this honorable court", our money has "In God we trust", Ohio's state motto
is "With God, all things are possible". All these are time tested (but
have been previously attacked) proving we submit our nation to a greater
power more than ourselves. It doesnt matter if its Budda or Zues, God is
undetermined regarding which religion it speaks of if any. It shows how
intolerant militant Atheists can be when they hear the word "God" in the
meaning of something greater than themselves.

The purpose of my email is to prove that elected officials who classify
themselves as Democrats with liberal ideology have assigned these judges in
the 9th Circuit Ct of Appeals. What we need is judges who will stand up
for our Constitution, not legislate from the bench striking down laws that
doesn't fit their agenda.

Currently Tom Daschle, Majority leader of the Senate, is holding up George
Bush's nominations to vacant appeals court positions around the nation due
to a litmus test simply because they are conservative. The job Tom Daschle
and Patrick Leahy (Judiciary Committee Chairman) is supposed to be doing
is advising and consenting on whether or not the nominated qualifies to be
a judge. If so, he will be sent to the Senate floor for a vote for
approval. Each and every nomination Bush sends to the commitee, Daschle
and his colleagues find ways to obstruct the nomination from even going to
a floor vote based on ideology that isnt part of a judge decision making
(they make decisions on the interpretation of law).

An example is Judge Charles Pickering from Mississippi. He was endorsed by
the American Bar Assoc. and numerous republican and democrats alike across
the country. Tom Daschle and his fellow Democrat friend Patrick Leahy
accused Pickering of being a racist and not fit for the position. Some
background on Pickering, and something that stands out like a sore thumb,
was that he defended and supported the civil rights of African-Americans
during the 50's and 60's. He was a lawyer for many racist cases and proved
to be a friend of the rights movement. Since Pickering is a proclaimed
conservative and believes in smaller govt, Daschle and Leahy has turned the
nomination into a virtual witch hunt. Disregarding truth for ideology.
Same goes for others nominations Bush has sent through.

What I need is for you to just send this to everyone you know who might not
be interested in politics but is very much interested in keeping America
from sliding down into religious persecution, bench legislation and an all
around moral downward spiral our nations founders wouldnt recognize (as if
they do now).

Please look at the sentor who represents you, make sure he/she fits your
way of thinking, if he doesn't, it is your duty, our forefathers fought so
hard to grant us, to place those who will respect the Constitution as a
standard to how our nation is run, not a societal meter to how outdated it
is.

Thank you,
Smith288

[toenail]

The real outrage is that the federal government has no authority to do anything at all about education, and the founding fathers would be irate at the centralized indoctrination system we have.

[Tijeras_Slim]

You have to be a liberal, with a penchant for "emanations" and "penumbras". I always thought that the section of the 1st Amendment dealing with religion was pretty self-explanatory.

[NEWwoman]

I don't think the pledge is unconstitutional.

But I'll get it a shot of what the other side is thinking.

1. That was then, this is now.
2. Revisionist history omits all the history mentioned in the post. Or the old excuse, these white European males had slaves back then and women were not allowed to vote and that was wrong. So they must be wrong about mentioning God and we must be tolerant.
3. No desire to be accountable to any Supreme Being, other than themselves. (Doing what is right in their own eyes.)
4. Above everything, we must be tolerant.

Side note: I recall saying the pledge every day as a child. There were some kids of particular religious beliefs, which it was forbidden to say the pledge. (JWs) They stepped out in hall as we said it, so it wasn't mandatory. I wasn't aware that any suffered harrassment for not saying the pledge.

[FreeTally]

All the constitution says is that "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

WOH! You forgot the second part which is every much as important - "nor deny the free excercise thereof".

What I find almost humerous, is that this issue is one where they almost never refer to the text of the Constitution. Heck, even gun-grabbers refer to the 2nd, but the anti-religion crowd rarely ever mentions the wording of the 1st Amendment. Of course they do not, because it is plain and simple, and even the average dolt can understand what it says.

[rwfromkansas]

It is pretty self-explanatory. Congress shall not establish an official religion. Not too difficult to grasp.

[BikerNYC]

All the constitution says is that "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

Very true. It also says, "Congress shall make NO law... abridging the freedom of speech..." "No" as in none, zilch, nada, nothing. What part of "No law" don't they understand?

[Ravenstar]

This ruling finally got me to realize why this judicial activism has been happening and how to stop it. The ridiculousness of this ruling helps nail it.

The court did not rule on any law. They were ruling on Community practice which is not in the purview of the Court. The Courts may rule on the Constitutionality or Unconstituionality of a Law but only Congress or state legislatures may pass laws. No law was passed here to require the recitation of the Pledge.

It is simply community practice which is a power retained by the People and outside the Courts jurisdiction.
And EFudd you Refute yourself since the 10 Amendment supports the above.

Ravenstar

[mil-vet]

Did a search - found this hadn't been posted since sometime in 2001, so at the risk of incurring "this has been previously posted" flames, I suggest you might want to check this link out:

Red Skelton on the Pledge of Allegiance. Note especially his last line (as it appears on this web site).

Oh, the shame of liberal pond scum!

[Nancee]

Hi "rwfromkanas"!

There is a "poll" on CourtTV, on this matter, and it is in need of some "S-E-R-I-O-U-S" FREEPING.

Thanks!

Nancee

[Ravenstar]

You have it right the minor clause, the part separated by comma, cannot be taken alone and retain the intended meaning. The argument you refute easily loses because they are taking the statement out of context, likely intentionally because they find the other part inconvenient, The first major Clause of the First Amendment is as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Ravenstar