[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.”

[Centurion2000]

Personally, I cannot bring myself to believe in any gods. Do you think that I should be considered a traitor?

No, just not thinking very well. Look at creation and you will see your creator's hand at work.

[E Rocc]

Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman

This is the guy who insisted that Mighty Mouse was doing cocaine on one cartoon and Donald Duck said the "F-word" on another. He's almost as nutty as Fred Phelps, and clearly would prefer a "Christian" government (read: theocracy)to our current liberties.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

The mention of a deity is the very essence of America's founding.

Where in the Constitution is a specific deity endorsed? Where is the subordination of our Nation to that deity endorsed?

-Eric

[stevio]

This coming from the Catholic League? Wow, I'm impressed. Sounds like we're getting some cajounas(sp?).

[Notwithstanding]

The following excerpt firmly establishes that the founders and citizens who ratified the Constitution understood America to be subject to God's laws and to the Creator. Any pretense to the contrary was tacked onto our nation's essence as an inorganic and inauthentic afterthought - by activist jurists.

It was not something open to serious debate and therefor being subjec to God is implicit in every word of the Constitution:

---

The Declaration of Independence


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,---

[E Rocc]

No, just not thinking very well. Look at creation and you will see your creator's hand at work.

Circular logic. Yet even if one concedes creation, there is the question of whether or not said Creator retains juristiction over said creation.

-Eric

[harpo11]

A Nation Without God

[LowOiL]

ONE NATION UNDER GOD

I pray for the above nightly...

[nutmeg]

Donohue ping!

[E Rocc]

It was not something open to serious debate and therefor being subjec to God is implicit in every word of the Constitution:

Luther Martin, a delegate to the Convention from Maryland, disagreed with you:

"The part of the system, which provides that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, was adopted by a very great majority of the convention, and without much debate, -- however, there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief of the existence of a deity and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism."

The Framers were precise men who left precious little implied. They could have easily included a reference to God in the Preamble or some such place and chose not to do so.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

GOD GIVEN RIGHTS - this is the foundation of our constitution. What did you think it was about - bureaucraticaly endorsed rights?

I believe it was Reagan that said that the basis of our Constitution was the people establishing what the Government would be allowed to do.

There were far too many deists involved in the founding of the nation and framing of the Constitution to assume that subordination to God was meant to "go without saying".

-Eric

[Exit148]

I also well remember when 'under God' was added, and to this day I still feel the interruption to the original flow.

BUT - The addition only confirmed that we, as a nation, honor a higher deity and I not only accept it ---I gladly say it.

What bothers me about this whole thing is that ONE MAN - using a false claim, was allowed to move his view/bias so high in the court system ---that SOME COURT or JUDGE somewhere could not have stopped this man who has become a present day Madlyn O'Hair.

I believe that the Supreme Court will stand by the phrase, and that the present Allegiance will be preserved. I also hope that other attackers will be thwarted before this is allowed to go so high or that their enablers be squished in the early stages.

[Notwithstanding]

Pulled out of context your quote means little.

The Revolution and Constitution were predicated by the Declration - a document that broadly sums up the common understanding that America was indeed subject to the laws of God.

You dismiss the Declaration out of hand. Which is unAmerican and typical revisionism.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Hmm, that's interesting.

Not that anyone in here would actually be interested in what the Constitution says, but let's turn to Art. III.

We know that judges of the supreme and inferior courts will hold their offices during "good behavior." This is broad, of course, but it's worth noting that only 7 judges in the history of the United States have been impeached and convicted.

But turning to the "ordain and establish" clause of Art. III on which you rely.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Now, read literally, the power of Congress extends only to the creation of the inferior courts. The question then becomes, "If Congress and create the inferior courts, is there an implicit power to eliminate them?"

I've often argued that there is such power, especially when making the point to all you "strict constructionists" out there that, if read literally, judicial review is unconstitutional. But, in a case such as this, when Congress would be deliberately acting in bad faith in dissolving the 9th Circuit, I have a feeling that the Supremes would be somewhat unlikely to allow Congress the power to unseat federal judges at its whim.

[Notwithstanding]

The 9th is way to big - disproportinately so due to CA's swelling.

There is a practical need to divide that circuit into 2 or 3 new circuits. Thus there would be no bad faith if this were done by Congress.

[Calpernia]

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

[Notwithstanding]

Precisely - the legitimacy of any new Amreican govt comes directly from the Declaration - which all 13 states agreed to unanimously. The Declaration clearly acknowledges that America is subordinate to God and it clearly gives men permission to establish a new govt. It is justification for the Revolution and the Constitutional Convention. And as such, the resulting Constitution cannot pretend to be free from the ideology and philiosophy of the Declaration. On the contrary, all that is in the Declaration is indeed implicit to an extreme degree in the Constitution.