Posted on 02/28/2003 2:42:55 PM PST by 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.”
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:
|
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 Constitution’s 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 doctrine—for 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 Congress—applies 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 Rehnquist’s 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 judge’s 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 if—and only if—the Congressman is indicted by a member of the Executive Branch first. |
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
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.
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.
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.