"In God We Trust" posters going up; *Freeper Action Alert on judiciary and Pledge/national motto*

I have several things in this article, but first I wanted to let you know what I learned at church this morning. The town I attend church in will be putting up "In God We Trust" posters paid for by the ministerial alliance in all classrooms in reaction to the ruling against the Pledge of Allegiance. The school board voted in favor of the idea. The Wichita school board also approved of privately-funded posters to be allowed in all Wichita public schools. I located the website that contains the posters here:

I think it is a good idea and am considering pushing for the school board in my town to do the same via the town ministerial alliance if they would support the posters. 500 posters (enough to support small towns definitely) only cost $375 and with churches kicking in, that can be paid for in no time. I suggest other Freepers fight for this in their local schools as well.

I will be writing my state legislators to see if they would be interested in mandating posters in every classroom in the state, privately funded as well. Such laws have passed in Utah, Virginia, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

It is time we react to the ACLU. If they fight against the national motto, this is one fight they will lose. In fact, even the 9th Circuit upheld the motto.

We need to demand that the Senate vote on Bush's nominees. Please contact your Senators and those that are on the Judiciary Committee!! In regards to Congress, here are contact numbers:

To reach local offices, http://www.senate.gov will probably have that contact info.

We also need to encourage President Bush to use his power of recess appointment if needed to fill up positions (especially the 9th Circuit). Show him we support the move to get people on the bench that "understand our rights come from God."

Some other issues need mentioning dealing with Congress. Robert Bork has suggested that Congress pass a Constitutional Amendment allowing them to simply overturn court rulings that are out of line. This would put a check on the never-answerable judiciary.

FR's CongressmanBillyBob suggested Congress simply remove establishment clause cases from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Further, this same act would require the Supreme Court, which would not have its jurisdiction revoked due to the Constitution, to interpret the establishment clause in the way it was originally intended. This is an excellent idea in that it will resolve all religion cases. Furthermore, it does not have the potential for abuse as the other solution due to it not needing a Constitutional Amendment. I will post his column in a reply to this article.

I think we should run with CBB's idea. Call your congressmen and demand they reform the judiciary ASAP. It is time we put a stop to judicial MIS-interpretation of the First Amendment ONCE AND FOR ALL and let Reagan, as well as GW have his day of victory on this issue.

Also, as personal expressions of love of God and country, it would be great to write on all letters "One nation under God." You can also get a stamp made at any office supply store and do it that way as well.

CongressmanBillyBob's article:

Stupid is as Stupid Does,
Even Among Federal Judges

When a subject goes from a two-line afternoon mention on the Associated Press radio news to the lead joke on Jay Leno that very night, you know that topic has legs. This happened with a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, because its phrase "under God" violates the First Amendment.

In fact, this was only a "panel" decision, involving three judges assigned at random. (This is the normal practice in all the US Circuit Courts.) And even the three judges did not agree. Two voted against the Pledge, one voted in favor of it.

This decision, which has already been condemned by everyone in the known universe except the hard-core "civil rights" advocates, is not going into effect immediately. CNN, in reporting the story, demonstrated its usual mixture of incompetence and bias. Judy Woodruff breathlessly reported later in the day that "the judge who issued the decision was reconsidering his opinion."

A competent reporter would have known that the losing side in every such decision will ask the court to "stay its decision pending appeal." And in most cases the court will agree to do exactly that. It does NOT mean that the court is having second thoughts. It only means that the court knows there can be an appeal and there might be a reversal, and is showing some courtesy to the higher court.

This is not the only truly dumb decision at the lower court levels on the subject of public mentions of the word "God." Several courts have recently held it to be unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments in or on public buildings. Some courts have ordered the removal of official state mottos which mention God (as does the national motto and the motto of Ohio, both of which have been judicially approved).

Although the people who support and litigate these cases call themselves "civil libertarians," in fact they are hostile to the civil liberties of most Americans, because they seek to prevent any public recognition of the historical truth that most Americans are believers, each in their own way, in a Supreme Being. These plaintiffs and their lawyers want to stamp out religion, using the Constitution (and compliant judges) as their weapon. They read the First Amendment as establishing freedom FROM religion, rather than its actual meaning, which is freedom OF religion.

There is no way to dispense with federal judges who think it is their business to change the Constitution to mean what they want, rather than obey it as written until the people choose to change it. Federal judges serve for life. Bad ones will remain on the bench until they die or retire. And few ever totally retire. The author of this particular bad decision is partly retired. His status is "Senior Judge," which means he only tries a case now and again. As this case demonstrates, he is still dangerous.

There is, however, a clear and immediate way to put a stop to all these ridiculous cases. Most people don't realize that Congress has full control of the entire jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and most of it for the Supreme Court. The Constitution specifies the existence of the Supreme Court and its very limited "original jurisdiction." Everything else about the federal judiciary was left to Congress. It created the lower courts and their jurisdiction, beginning with the Judiciary Act of 1789.

And that is the key to the solution. If Congress passed the following statute, the problem would be solved immediately. They would probably use a less honest and more ponderous title than this. And they would skip the paragraphs in italics due to a lack of either candor or introspection. But this would pass, based on the evidence that the Senate voted 99-0 to condemn the Ninth Circuit decision the day after it was handed down.

-------

The Common Sense on the Federal Bench Act of 2002

WHEREAS, the Declaration of Independence states the "unalienable rights" which were granted by our "Creator;"

WHEREAS, America has always been peopled by those of many different religious faiths, but has always been a "God-fearing" nation;

WHEREAS, the United States does not discriminate against anyone based on their religious beliefs, or lack of such beliefs, since the Constitution specifically forbids any "religious test" for those in public office;

WHEREAS, the Ten Commandments are shared by all types of religious groups in the Jewish tradition, and all in the Christian tradition, including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and all Protestant groups;

WHEREAS, the Ten Commandments state principles that all the world's great religions have in common, not just the religions that are most numerous in the United States;

WHEREAS; Congress is unaware of any major religious tradition which encourages people to lie, cheat, steal and murder, contrary to the Ten Commandments;

WHEREAS; it is not the purpose of the Constitution to protect everyone, no matter how thin-skinned, from having their feelings hurt by anything done or said by anyone they disagree with;

WHEREAS; it is generally true, but not universally so, that Americans are "God-fearing," the same applying to calling all Congressmen "honorable," all federal judges "wise," and all the nation's children "above average;"

WHEREFORE, Congress hereby enacts the following law to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts:

1. No federal judge or Justice shall retain jurisdiction in any case which claims that the First Amendment prevents the mention of "God," "Creator," "Supreme Being," "Great Spirit," or any similar phrase, in the founding documents of the United States, in the motto of the United States or of any state, in the Ten Commandments, in the "Star-Spangled Banner" or any other official song of the nation or of any state, or in any historical document which simply recognizes the truth of religious intent by a substantial majority of all Americans in every period of American history.

2. Before summarily dismissing any such case, such judge or Justice shall assess costs of $10,000 jointly and severally against all plaintiffs in such an action, and another $10,000 in costs jointly and severally against the attorneys for such plaintiffs.

3. These provisions shall apply immediately, including to cases currently in the federal courts at the time that this law goes into effect, which shall be the day that the President signs it into law, or the day that it becomes law by being passed over his veto, whichever shall apply.

4. In obeying these limits on the jurisdiction of the federal courts, all judges and Justices shall recognize that the First Amendment forbids only the "establishment" of an official religion, such as in England, in many other nations around the world, and in a few of the American states, including the Commonwealths of Virginia and Massachusetts until well into the 19th century. This shall remain forbidden, but non-sectarian mentions of "God" shall not be forbidden in any context, including meetings of Congress, presidential speeches, meetings of the Supreme Court, school graduations, and any and all other public convocations for any purpose.

-----

Readers brought up on the civics book descriptions of the federal courts might doubt that such a thing CAN be done by Congress. Not only CAN it be done, it HAS been done. Decades ago, Congress approved the building of the Alaska oil pipeline, so that Alaskan oil could be more easily brought to the "lower 48" states, rather than pumped into tankers and sold overseas. But "activists," and their "activist" lawyers, persuaded a court in San Francisco to issue an injunction against the project and the case went up on appeal. (Regular readers know how much I despise the use of the word "activist," not to describe those who are "active" in any cause they believe in, but only hard-core leftists.)

Given Alaskan weather and the short window for construction where the pipeline would be built, a few months of delay would mean a whole year of delay. Congress took the bull by the horns and passed a law removing the jurisdiction of the courts to consider cases concerning the right to build the Alaska pipeline. And that was that. As instructed by Congress, the courts backed off.

I recall no objection by the American Bar Association to the act of Congress in withdrawing jurisdiction from federal courts over the oil pipeline. Therefore, I reject in advance as being grossly hypocritical and biased, the predictable opposition of the ABA to this bill that would withdraw federal jurisdiction over "God" cases.

The Pledge of Allegiance case will probably be reversed by the whole Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The two alternatives for the defenders of the Pledge are to ask the entire Court to withdraw and replace the ill-advised decision of this three-judge panel. Even the Ninth Circuit, which is the most reversed Circuit in the entire federal system, is likely to see the wisdom of ending the embarrassment and dispensing with this foolish decision. But if it fails to see the light, the US Supreme Court will, based on recent decisions, reverse the decision and solve the immediate problem.

But the Pledge decision is a symptom of a larger failing in the American system. Educational curriculums are being "dumbed down" so as not to offend the least able students. Speech and conduct codes are being written to protect the most sensitive citizens from robust and free speech of the type on which the nation was founded. Criminal laws are being twisted to protect the criminals from the consequences of their stupidity, rather than the public from the criminals. Civil laws are being twisted so any plaintiff, even one whose common sense was surgically removed at birth, can still recover a pot of money from somebody, somewhere.

In a society like this, it should be expected that some judges would go along with the gag and seek to abolish any public mention of God and the Ten Commandments. After all, public morality is all reduced if the basis of morality in religion – EVERYBODY'S RELIGION, not just the beliefs of certain people and certain religions – can be chopped away at the root.

Of course this was a stupid decision by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It did not, however, come out of left field. It was a product of a long series of stupid decisions by the US Supreme Court. A restriction of jurisdiction, as laid out above, would solve this problem at the lower court levels, but also at the Supreme Court level.

Since it is impossible to reduce the occasional stupidity that crops up on the federal bench, it is necessary to reduce the opportunities for it to apply that stupidity. It is impossible to stop young children from running about. It IS possible to prevent them from running about with scissors in their hands. The same is true of federal judges.

Comments can be made on the "Letters" page.

© J. Armor, Esq., 2002

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.