Pledge of Allegiance ruled "unconstitutional"

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

stlscouter writes:

Hunt-maybe the compromise could be based on what the first amendment actually says, "congress shall make no law.." I wish someone would point to the law tht congress passed that mandates all school children must recite the pledge.

 

There's no law (now) that MANDATES recitation of the pledge, since such laws were declared unconstititional years ago (but only three years before THAT, such laws had been found constitutional, and the Jehovah's Witnesses who still refused to pledge to the flag for religious reasons were harassed by mobs of freedom-hating bastards, including one castration).

 

The 14th amendment's clause "...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..." has, for decades, been interpreted by the courts to mean that many parts of the constitution apply to the states. For example, states can no longer have an official state religion, as they could (and some did) back when the constitution first was adopted.

 

The first amendment generally applies to the states (and if it didn't, the BSA couldn't have won the Dale case on first amendment grounds, since the state of New Jersey would be not be constrained by the first amendment, which only restricted Congress until the 14th amendment).

 

The first amendment restrictions also apply to the legislature of the state of California; public schools are the result of California government action, which must not violate the first amendment.

[GernBlansten]

In Colorado, just two years ago, the state legistlature passed a law that required the pledge be recited by every public student. It was overturned by the state court on grounds that no American should be forced to a loyalty oath. Had nothing to do with "under God".

 

I agree that the high court rejected hearing the Newdow case on a technicality. I'm sure Rehnquist had the foresight to see that the court would rule unanimously to outlaw the pledge in schools if pressed to do so. So they found an easy out. If the court were to rule based strictly on the constitution (as we would expect them to), they would have to rule that the pledge violates a person's freedom of religion.

 

For those that find no offense to the "under God" part, replace that phrase with "under no God" and see if that offends you.

 

Since we have a history of "tweeking" the pledge over time, perhaps its time to give it another tweek. Put the issue to rest. Lets get all up in arms over something more pressing.

[stlscouter]

the 13th, 14th, an15th etc amendments all carry clauses at the end stating that congress shall enact the needed legislation to carry out the purpose and intent of the amendment. The first 10 carry no such clause. My point is subtly contained in the last part of my post-while the word religion is used the word GOD is not. We spend much time in these post parsing words- so to parse the word religion-to worship or hold in esteem can include money, government or any number of other things including GOD. Additionally, the words freedom from religion is not there (in the first amendment). The founding of this nation as has been pointed out before, rests on our rights clearly come from a creator and we then in turn, "loan" our government the rights to pass laws to meet the goals of the preamble. The government from the beginning of the republic has no rights to grant. I know you don't agree but that is the history of the nation and it is only reflected in the Pledge as recited today. While the third branch of the government has provided many, many, books on their interpertation of what the words in the Constitution mean they have changed and will continue to change but the history and the actual words of the written document are there for everyone to see and read. If you truly wish to find rights not written there don't rely on lawyers-amend the document with the words freedom from any GOD.

[bt01]

The 9th Circuit Court should be ruled "unconstitutional"

[Hunt]

"The founding of this nation ...rests on our rights clearly come from a creator and we then in turn, "loan" our government the rights to pass laws to meet the goals of the preamble. The government from the beginning of the republic has no rights to grant. I know you don't agree but that is the history of the nation and it is only reflected in the Pledge as recited today."

 

This statement reflects a common misunderstanding, because it implies that the Declaration of Independence is the foundation of our nation. It isn't--the Constitution is. The Constitution makes it clear that all government power--and rights--come from the People. There is no mention of God, the Creator, or even Providence, in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. What's more, the only creator-endowed rights mentioned in the Declaration are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Let's face it: freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not Biblical concepts. No, those are Enlightenment ideas that did not grow out of Christianity (at least not directly). Remember, the Pilgrims and others who came to this continent to freely practice their religions didn't actually believe in freedom of religion either--they expelled heretics (Rhode Island was an exception). The Establishment Clause was added to the Bill of Rights by Enlightenment thinkers--not religious leaders.

[Hunt]

One more thing. For a preview of what the Supreme Court will probably do if it ever decides the Pledge issue on the merits, read Burger's opinion in:

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marsh.html

 

dealing with prayers before legislative sessions. To see what the court would do if it really addressed the issue honestly, read Brennan's dissent in the same case.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

And to see how a bad decision like Marsh affects people, the 4th circuit recently said a town council could legally open its meetings by only allowing ministers in the "Judeo-Christian tradition" by citing Marsh. Look for town councils to declare what religion their particular town is (by, say, establishing a policy that only Southern Baptists can pray to open their meetings) if this isn't overturned on appeal.

[evmori]

Give it up Merlyn! You don't even have a good argument! Now you can attack me instead of challenging my statement.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Trevorum]

"Perhaps an actual definition of religion would help-I know some who worship government and money maybe these too are religions."

 

I don't know if there is a broadly accepted definition of religion, but anthropologists - whose job it is to study and compare human societies and their institutions - accept that religions must contain three key elements: 1) a belief in supernatural beings or forces; 2) a system of ritualized behaviors; and 3) a system of ethical rules. Under this framework, the "worship" of government and/or money are not religions.

[stlscouter]

The US Constitutution draws heavily upon all of the historic documents before it including The Mayflower Compact, The Articles of Confereration and The Declaration of Independence. Each of those documents paid particular attention to the right of freedom of religion. And stated such, in no uncertain terms. There was no dissent or discussion as to freedom from religion. And religion was not the reason they were replaced. As to antropologists getting to define worship, religion, diety or GOD, their definitions relate to a culture and may well define the culture of the US in the present day as a culture that worships youth, money or power(political or otherwise), only the perspective of time will tell.

 

By thge way, what do 1492, 1776, 1787 and 2005 have in common?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All are Anno Diomini-the year of our Lord.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

What do Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday have in common?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They're all named for Norse gods.

 

So, would that justify changing it to "one nation, under odin"? Or at least on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays?

[stlscouter]

and including MORE religion in our daily lives is bad how?

 

And did you really miss the first part of the post in your anxiousness to scroll down to see the answer to the quiz?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

stlscouter writes:

and including MORE religion in our daily lives is bad how?

 

So you agree that public school officials should lead students in the pledge with "one nation, under odin" on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays? Monday would still have the same-old "under god", so this change would be just an increase. More religion, right? So you'd be in favor of this?

 

And did you really miss the first part of the post in your anxiousness to scroll down to see the answer to the quiz?

 

What about it? It's your usual semicoherent, disconnected thoughts.

[evmori]

Atta boy, Merlyn. Attack the person! Good tactic! You'd make a great politician! Avoid the actual point & attack the person!

 

Another ruling that will be overturned! I swear (sorry) that people only file these moronic lawsuits in the 9th Circuit because they know those morons will side with them! At least the 9th Circuit has 75% of their cases over turned.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No Ed, I can't "avoid the actual point" because, as I pointed out, stlscouter writes in a semicoherent and disconnected style; there IS no point that I can discern, so I can't reply to it.