How is the "under God" unconstitutional?

1. Jefferson, a guy who wrote about a "wall of separation of church and state," attended church in the Congressional building 3 days after writing that phrase.

3. Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights, supported, alongside with Jefferson, a bill to "punish Sabbathbreakers" while in the Virginia Legislature. Keep in mind these were two of the most liberal founding fathers.

4. The U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled the public display of the Ten Commandments is wrong, has a statue of Moses and the Commandments in its chambers.

5. It was not until the 1940's when the current radical view of the separation of church and state came about. In fact, previous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as state supreme courts, ruled in favor of things as far as blue laws mandating the closing of stores on Sundays.

6. The Northwest Ordinance, which was needed to become a new territory since I think 1787, required that schools support religion and morality.

In the Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress, the Kentucky Resolution includes this little interesting portion:

"3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution,that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares that "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": thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion,are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force."

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the States."

"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."

"The successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment OF A PARTICULAR FORM OF CHRISTIANITY THRO' THE U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form is the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe that any portion of power confided in me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly."

(notice that this one indicates a view of the Establishment clause that is of a modern conservative, that it strictly refers to a legal establishment of a faith).

Here is my collection of ideas of what we should do and say in response to the ruling based on what I have seen on FR.

First, we need to contact the White House. This is what the press secretary said yesterday:

"MR. FLEISCHER: The President was informed at the G-8 Summit about the San Francisco court decision pertaining to the flag. The
President's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous.

The Supreme Court, itself, begins each of its sessions with the phrase, "God save the United States and this honorable court." The
Declaration of Independence refers to God or to the Creator four different times. Congress begins each session of the Congress each day
with a prayer. And of course, our currency says, "In God We Trust."

The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision, and THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS NOW EVALUATING HOW
TO SEEK REDRESS."

This is good....but let's keep the pressure on to show Bush he can do a lot even in this situation from the judicial branch.

Here is the switchboard for the WH: 202-456-1414
Here is the comment line: 202-456-1111
Here is the fax number: 202-456-2461

In contacting the White House, I think we should say the following:

1. The President should address the nation and demand his judicial nominees get voted on, since this ruling would not have happened if
his nominees would have been put on the bench instead of having a judge come out of retirement to fill the vacancy.
2. The President should call a joint session of Congress, calling for a Constitutional Amendment. No, we don't need one, but the judges
aren't able to understand plain language, so let's make it plain. Bush should demand an amendment that will protect the right of God to be
in the public schools and that will also restrict the authority of judges in making rulings. They should be required to cite precedent clear
back to the founding period on issues that go back as far.
3. The President should publicly call for the impeachment of the two judges in this case.
4. The president should publicly call for a radical changing of the 9th circuit or a defunding altogether.
(Both numbers 3 and 4 could be dealt with heavy-handedly in a joint session of Congress as well).
5. The President should use this to push for school vouchers. He has been vindicated by the SCOTUS ruling today on the matter and should push it to the fullest extent possible.
6. The President should encourage the use of the Pledge by using it more often in public appearances.

As for Congress, we should call for impeachment of the judges in the House. In the Senate, we should call for VOTES ON BUSH'S
NOMINEES!

U.S. Capitol numbers (thanks to Mo1):

HERE'S THE TOLL FREE NUMBER FOR THE CAPITOL: 1-800-648-3516

US Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

We could freep the judge that wrote the opinion (thanks WakeUpChristian). Call Federal Judge Alfred Goodwin and demand
that he immediately resign... (415) 556-9800

Also, an idea of mine:

Are there Freepers from California that are teachers?

I seriously think we should consider encouraging them to violate this ruling when school starts up if they want to. Do we have any
money left over from the legal defense fund? We could even support them with that if they have to go to court.

Idea for FReeper Activism (thanks to Spiff for this idea):
Independence Day is coming. In my area, and I'm sure in many other areas, the fireworks display includes some sort of pre-fireworks
programs. In my town, we have the 36th Army Band play a brief concert, have a few fireworks and cannons go off during the 'Overture of
1812' and then we have someone sing the National Anthem right before the fireworks begin.

The program has never included a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance before. In light of the disgusting, anti-American decision by the
9th and in my patriotic desire to resist tyranny, I called the director of the fireworks display and suggested he add the Pledge to the
program. He loved the idea and the reason behind it! So, in my town thousands of people are going to celebrate their independence on
Independence Day by asserting it and reciting the Pledge on city property at a city-sponsored event. You can rest assured that we will
emphasize the "under God" portion of the Pledge.

Independence day is fast approaching. Many FReepers plan on attending various 4th of July events to include fireworks displays, etc. Get
on the phone now and do as I did and get the full Pledge of Allegiance to be recited at the events in your area.

There are also several petitions linked on FR. I think it would be good to support them. However, I also think that the one being given to the Supreme Court is being sent to the wrong people....we should send this stuff to Congress to get THEIR action.

Your post #15 says it all - "separation of church and state" is BS - it leads to oral sex in the oval office and not much else - it CERTAINLY isn't anywhere in the constitution!!!!

As you "quote" - "Congress shall not establish an official religion." - This has somehow been perverted (apt word when talking about the activities of liberals) into the "separation" lie.

OK, so I'm a gov't employee, and have been since early 1966, if you include my 21 years of active duty military time, AND I am a Christian. I guess, by the moronic logic of the alternate lifestyle garbage of the 9th whatevertheheck, I must be unconstitutional - BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The sad thing about this whole mess is that it is a natural outgrowth of the abject stupidity of political correctness. Under the tenants of political correctness, I must not only allow you to have an opinion or conviction different from mine, I've got to agree with you, affirm yours, and deny my own - that is, for me to allow you your opinion, copnviction, or whatever, I have to give mine up - you don't have to allow me MY opinions, convictions, et.al.!! How d*mn dumb is THAT! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

No wonder the former US attorney general said that those who home-school their kids are a threat to the gov't! NO HOME-SCHOOLED judge would have ever made such a stupid ruling!!

This is how the Court decided: "In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism...The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (Sandra O’Connor, J., concurring)."

"In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words “under God” to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD’s policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause. The judgment of dismissal is vacated with respect to these two claims, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs on this appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED."

NEWDOW v. U.S. Congress, No. 00-16423, 2002 U.S. App. FINDLAW.COM (9th Cir. June 26, 2002).

traditionalist wrote: "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."

The Bill of Rights which prohibits the Federal government from violating our Rights was expanded to include the States so that they can't violate our Rights also.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an estab lishment of religion,” U.S. Const. amend. I, a provision that “the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable with full force to the States and their school districts.” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 580 (1992). NEWDOW v. U.S. Congress, No. 00-16423, 2002 U.S. App. FINDLAW.COM (9th Cir. June 26, 2002).

The question before the fore is, do we want to spend political capital on this issue?

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.