Skip to comments.
[Civil Disobedience Now!] JUDGES WHO BANNED THE PLEDGE MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH
Catholic League ^
| 2-28-2003
| William Donohue
Posted on 02/28/2003 2:42:55 PM PST by Notwithstanding
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 181-195 next last
To: Notwithstanding
Mass pledge ins in public buildings and institutions!
To: Notwithstanding
I think FR ought to lead the way in staging huge displays of civil disobedience at schools in their communities.
Pick a Congress Critter and push for bills of impeachment:
MIKE BROWN SOLUTIONS http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/cgvsjdg.htm |
THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CONTROL THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY Congress has the authority to overrule wrongly decided cases. Wesson v. United States, 48 F.3d 894, 901 (5th Cir. 1995). Congress may cure any error made by the courts. Fast v. School Dist. of City of Ladue, 728 F.2d 1030, 1034 (8th Cir. 1984) (en banc). Congress has the power to counter judicial doctrine. Belgard v. State of Hawaii, 883 F.Supp. 510, 514 (D. Hawaii 1995). At least, that is what federal judges themselves tell us. These same judges make much of separation-of-powers. The Constitutions division of power among the three branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached upon branch approves the encroachment. New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 2431 (1992). Notice that this judicial doctrinefor that is all it is, the words and even the concept of separation-of-powers appear nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or even statutes enacted by Congressapplies only when the judiciary feels threatened by other branches of government. Federal judges ignore their own doctrine when judicial legislation is the object (the words judicial legislation appear in William Rehnquists dissent in Roe v. Wade, 93 S.Ct. 705 (1973). The absurd idea that maintains that the federal judiciary is one of the three co-equal branches of government and cannot be disciplined by Congress is easily disproved. First, Congress ordains and establishes courts inferior to the Supreme Court, as it did in 1891 with the federal circuit courts of appeal. I.e., Congress created this mess. Congress can just as easily dissolve it. See Article III, section 1. Second, judges hold their offices during good behavior. Who determines that good behavior? Any individual member of Congress does, objecting to the judges behavior by a Bill of Impeachment, as then-Congressman Gerald Ford did in 1969 when he caused Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to resign. Third, has anyone noticed that a judge cannot bring a Bill of Impeachment against a Congressman? All a judge can do is cause problems for a Congressman ifand only ifthe Congressman is indicted by a member of the Executive Branch first.
|
To: Water Word
You use "religious belief" as if it is a bad word. Yes, it is religious AND it is logical AND it is TRUE.
Religion is by its very nature a matter of opinion. Our government is forbidden from endorsing specific religious viewpoints.
"Under God" is actually doubly religious. First of all it assumes a single Deity. Hindus would disagree as well as Buddhists and pagans, not to mention agnostics and atheists. Secondly, it implies that the nation is somehow subordinate to this deity. Even a believer in one God can question that.
-Eric
123
posted on
03/01/2003 10:11:42 AM PST
by
E Rocc
To: Water Word
The problem is that this "Court" has identified an imaginary injury, and as a remedy has imposed tyranny upon the vast majority.
It was decided in 1943, at the height of the patriotic fervor associated with WWII, that West Virginia could not require children of Jehovah's Witnesses to say the pledge of allegiance. This was noncontroversial at the time and remains settled law.
So, no child can be required to say that which violates conscience. Hence, the child of this atheist could not be and cannot be required to say the pledge. A simple affirmation that this child was covered by the 1943 decision would have sufficed to bring relief to the plaintiff.
However, the court went further to rule that other, nonobjecting children saying the pledge injured the plaintiff. This is clearly wrong and allows the tyranny of a single person to oppress the majority.
To: Servant of the Nine
ONE NATION....U N D E R G O D!!!!!!!!!!!
To: Servant of the Nine
LET US NOT FORGET THAT MIKE NEWDOW, THE CREEP WHO STARTED THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE, LIED!!!!!!!
HIS DAUGHTER GOES TO CALVERY BAPTIST CHURCH IN COSTA MESA AND SHE LOVES THE LORD AND NEVER WANTED ANY PART OF THIS, NOR DID HER MOTHER.
I CAN SEE WHY THIS WOMAN LEFT THIS LEFTIST, ATHEIST FREAK IN THE FIRST PLACE.
NEWDOW NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES OF AT THE VERY LEAST CONTEMPT.
Comment #127 Removed by Moderator
To: Viva Le Dissention
I do agree that if you have the power to "create" and institution of government, then you also have that same power to eliminate it.
Of the three co-equal branches of government, Congress is the eldest. In theory, Congress represents the will of the people, and if the people don't want a renegade court anymore, that's how it should be.
Congress also contrals the pursestrings. At the very least, Congress could cripple the 9th Circuit by eliminating funding and/or altering jurisdiction.
Comment #129 Removed by Moderator
Comment #130 Removed by Moderator
To: Notwithstanding
bttt
To: E Rocc
For your info, I went to a public school. Back in the 1800's and 1900's, some schools and churches were the same building. It has just been since the liberals want to take God out of everything that things changed. Frankly, things were a whole lot better the old way. That is one of the reasons, home schooling is so highly rated these days. And, those kids do a whole lot better than kids in public schools. I will close with Red Skelton's words, "May God Bless you and America"!!!!
132
posted on
03/01/2003 11:28:45 AM PST
by
MamaB
To: Servant of the Nine
I agree with you for the most part, but I also think a compromise could be reached here. Leave "under God" in the pledge, but don't force people to say those two words if they don't agree with them. It seems like that would make everyone happy.
133
posted on
03/01/2003 11:31:17 AM PST
by
dixierose
(American by birth, Southern by the grace of God)
To: Dimensio
" Personally, I cannot bring myself to believe in any gods. Do you think that I should be considered a traitor?"
Your not a traitor. Your a minority.
134
posted on
03/01/2003 11:37:45 AM PST
by
SealSeven
("I feel so much better now that I have given up all hope.")
To: All; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
Call your House members (especially) and Senators!!! We have got to do what we can to stop this, including Congressman Billybob's idea to remove religion completely from the jurisdiction of lower courts and another idea of breaking up the 9th.
We must pursue this in all the ways that we can and demand our legislators do the same!
It is time that we say enough to this revisionist and novel interpretation of the First Amendment motivated by anti-Catholic views of KKK SC justice Hugo Black (says this staunch Prot).
Let's keep this up on the FR Breaking news sidebar all this week, if possible, Jim. Thanks if you decide to do so, but I understand if you do not want to clutter it up more.
135
posted on
03/01/2003 12:06:38 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.")
To: RJCogburn
Explain how. The founders considered a judicial tyranny just as terrible as a "real" one. Are you saying the founders were "real idiots?"
Thanks for playing.
136
posted on
03/01/2003 12:09:20 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.")
To: Servant of the Nine
Then the proper course is to push it through the legislative branch.
It is sickening that you are willing to support the court's misinterpretation of the First Amendment for your personal agenda to get carried through.
That is very low.
137
posted on
03/01/2003 12:11:45 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.")
To: LiberalBuster
Then the proper course is to push it through the legislative branch.
It is sickening that you are willing to support the court's misinterpretation of the First Amendment for your personal agenda to get carried through.
That is very low.
138
posted on
03/01/2003 12:13:09 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.")
To: LiberalBuster
Duh.....we are not idiots.
That doesn't mean diddly squat as to their constitutionality.
139
posted on
03/01/2003 12:14:29 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.")
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
We are under God in the sense that God leads our destiny, whether we acknowledge that or not.
It is Constitutional to use the phrase and so even though our nation is not godly, I support its continued use. Anything to get people to think about God in public is good.
140
posted on
03/01/2003 12:21:27 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 181-195 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson