[Civil Disobedience Now!] JUDGES WHO BANNED THE PLEDGE MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH

Catholic League ^ | 2-28-2003 | William Donohue

[Notwithstanding]

Catholic League president William Donohue commented on the decision reached today by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a challenge to its decision banning the Pledge of Allegiance because of the words “under God.” Here are his remarks:

“Two things need to be done immediately: teachers and students should practice civil disobedience and the judges must be impeached.

“It is up to the teachers in the nine western states affected by this decision to break the law: they should instruct their students on the meaning of civil disobedience and then practice it. All they need to do is call the cops and local TV reporters and then recite the Pledge of Allegiance in their presence. It needs to be shown on television all over the world that as the U.S. prepares to go to war to maintain the liberties symbolized in the Pledge, there are brave men, women and children at home who are prepared to fight tyranny on our own soil.

“Iraq’s problem is tyranny of the minority. Ironically, that’s our problem as well. But the Iraqi people at least stand to be liberated and have their tyrant deposed. We need to do the same with ours, albeit with different means: impeachment proceedings against the two federal judges who made this decision should commence as soon as possible. Make no mistake about it, it is not enough for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn this ruling. Judicial malpractice has been committed and those responsible must be removed from the bench. They should be removed not because most Americans disagree with them but because of jurisprudential incompetence.”

[E Rocc]

The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of the constitution. And God is the source of our rights - not bureaucrats like you.

If you're going to use ad hominems (understandable considering the weakness of your position in a secular-based debate), try using ones that make sense.

Read above. The constitution just IMPLEMENTS what is written there.

The Declaration was "why", not "how". You can't, for example, cite the Declaration in a court of law. (indeed, cameras should be permitted in the USSC to film Scalia's reaction if anyone ever does.....hehehe).

Even so, the Declaration may say that our rights came from some Creator, but it does not say that we remain subordinate to same, as the phrase "One Nation Under God" claims.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

When the judges take the oath to uphold the law. Isn't it done with a bible and mention of the word God?

It's not required by law of judges or any other elected official.

-Eric

[Viva Le Dissention]

I direct you to Article VI, Cl. 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Oaths of office are mentioned 2 other times in the Constitution:

Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.

Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[elfman2 on another computer]

" Well, then your problem is with media manipulation, not with the reality they pretend to "cover". "

Yes, That’s a big part of it. But an integral part of my concern is that this call for "civil disobedience" is premature and an overreaction. And that without more information and strategic thinking, it’s likely to spark the kind behavior that the media will jump on and even promote as party extremism.

So most importantly, I want to remind people that it’s the responsibility of "the reality" [those promoting the civil disobedience] to be aware of the likely media outcome rather than acting without regard to them and then blaming them. The media is predictable, we shouldn’t be.

[harpo11]

'After the Declaration of Indpendence was signed,
Virginia stateman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson:
'We know the race is not to the swift nor
the battle to the strong.
Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind
and directs this storm?'

Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration.
The years and changes accumulate.
But the themes of this day he would know:
our nation's grand story of courage
and it's simple dream of dignity.

We are not this story's author, who fills time and
eternity with His purpose.
Yet His purpose is achieved in our duty,
and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another."

President George W. Bush--Inaugural Address--January 20, 2001

IMHO, Our Nation since the Declaration of Independence and the first rebel's war cry has always and will always be Under God.

No man can take that away. Our birth right, our Liberty, our Freedom come from God, not from the whims of man.

[We Happy Few]

The Constitution, with rare exception, addresses only "state action"--that is, action taken by federal or state government. (Municipalities are deemed subdivisions of states and technically have no status in the Constitution.) I have not read the Ninth Circuit's decision, but it would obviously restrict only the power of a public school to require a student to say "under God." This leads to two points.

First, if a student blurted out "under God" while his class was reciting an ostensibly godless Pledge of Allegiance, it would violate the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment for his school to punish him. So as long as it is not the teacher who is requiring the students to say "under God," but rather the students voluntarily doing so, there is not really any act of civil disobedience taking place. Rather, this voluntary act by the student would be a constitutionally protected expression. We would have claims to free exercise of religion and free speech pitted against a claim to freedom from establishment of religion.

Second, it is not clear what the penalty (or remedy) would be if a teacher did instruct his class to continue saying "under God" during the Pledge. I suppose that a student (or parent) who was offended could seek an injuction against the teacher and the school, or perhaps try to commence a contempt action. I doubt that there would be any basis for damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. So I don't think that there is really much bite behind the Ninth Circuit's bark.

A federal court has very limited enforcement resources of its own, in the form of the U.S. Marshalls. Even the Ninth Circuit understands that its credibility and influence would be demolished if it tried to send U.S. Marshalls into a public school to ensure that no one said "under God."

[We Happy Few]

Correct. Read Michael Novak's magnificent book on the Declaration of Independence.

[E Rocc]

The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of the constitution.

The Constitution was intended to be the Supreme Law of the United States of America. It doesn't reference the Declaration anywhere. Why? Because the Declaration was a decree of separation from the British Empire followed by a list of reasons and justifications. It was never intended to be a governing document.

While you're searching for an affirmation of subordination to God in The Constitution for the United States of America, feel free to locate a reference to the Declaration.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

IMHO, Our Nation since the Declaration of Independence and the first rebel's war cry has always and will always be Under God.

That is a religious belief, not a political one.

-Eric

[CoolGuyVic]

"JUDGES WHO BANNED THE PLEDGE MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH "

Sorry.

Disagree.

I will back the 9th on this one. While I'm at it, I don't like the idea of saying a pledge to a piece of cloth. If I'm going to pledge to something inanimate, I'd at least like it to be the Constitution.

[We Happy Few]

". . . and to the Republic for which it stands"

The Pledge already contains reference to more than a piece of cloth.

[E Rocc]

You lack the facility of logic my friend. Not suprising - I have never seen an atheist with it.

I'm not an atheist (or a bureacrat).

Where did I argue that the Declaration is law - exactly the opposite. It is what the law MUST ACCOMPLISH - and I repeat THE IMPLEMENTATION.

So allowing the "pursuit of happiness" is also required? Wouldn't that invalidate drug prohibition or other moralistic laws? If indeed, the Declaration constituted requirements.

You are so blind to think that law is above all. GOD is above all for God's sake. Above me, above you, and above all lawers like you.

I'm not a lawyer, though you're making me look like a good one..hehe. In the job I do have, I deal with auditors and inspectors all the time. They are supposed to do their jobs according to specific governing documents. It's not unheard of for them to look for what they think should be going on, not what is required. In those cases, the simple question "where in the [insert name of governing document here] is this required?" is always considered appropriate.

Is it so hard to concieve that?

Is it so hard to conceive that that is a religious view? It is based upon your own beliefs, not law or history. Therefore, it is your right to hold those beliefs. It is not government's place to promote them.

-Eric

[We Happy Few]

Here is the Novak book and a review:

On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding

by Michael Novak

"In one key respect, the way the story of the United States has been told for the past one hundred years is wrong," writes Michael Novak. "To read most philosophers and historians of the American polity today is to learn that America is an historical embodiment of secular philosophy, the Enlightenment." Nothing could be further from the truth, says Novak, who sets out to demonstrate just how important religious faith was to the founders. He makes a spirited case, noting, for example, that the very first act of the First Continental Congress, in 1774, was to make a public prayer. Of the 3,154 "citations in the writings of the founders," 34 percent are to the Bible. He provides dozens of similar examples. On Two Wings does not proceed as a traditional narrative; Novak favors extensive block quotations from his sources and conveys a whole chapter in question-and-answer format. In addition, a major part of the book is an appendix that provides brief sketches of the lesser-known founders. What the book lacks in narrative elegance it makes up for in forceful argument-- it pulls off the trick of being both brief and thorough. Readers who admire Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis will appreciate this book, especially if they are religiously inclined. --John Miller

[E Rocc]

GOD is above politics too. And again, the PURPOSE of this country is in the Declaration of Independence. That's why the country was CREATED. It has no other PUPROSE. The basic MECHANISMS of IMPLEMENTATION are in the constitution. It is supposed to serve that purpose. Are you denying the PURPOSE of this country set so eloquently at its CREATION? Or you can't distinguish between the purpose and the tool. Untill you answer this your rambling makes absolutely no sense.

The irony here is that the Declaration was written by a Deist, a man who did not believe in organized religion or subordination to God. The purpose of this nation appears in the Preamble to the Constitution. It would have been easy to add a reference to God there, but there is none.

-Eric

[billbears]

"under God" (thats a fact - Google it and you will discover how the phrase was added).

So? That's supposed to make it all 'Americun' then? Good grief, would you pledge your loyalty to an Emperor if fifty years after he was set on the throne he said he was doing it in the name of God? Sheesh, it's two words in the middle of a pledge that flies in the face of what the Republic was meant to stand for and so therefore it becomes something worth fighting for? Please provide a list of patriots before 1892 that pledged to the flag instead of the Constitution and you may change my mind.

[We Happy Few]

I think my point was misunderstood.

Michael Novak is a respected theologian. Several years ago, he was awarded the prestigious Templeton Prize, often called "the Nobel Prize in religion."

Neither my comments nor Novak's writings are in any way hostile to "religious belief."