NationStates Jolt Archive

Holy crap! They are going WAY TOO FAR! Now they are trying to prevent courts from ruling on the pledge. Here's one quote I'd like to point and laugh at:
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who sponsored the measure, said that denying a child the right to recite the pledge was a form of censorship. "We believe that there is a God who gives basic rights to all people and it is the job of the government to protect those rights."

Banning something that inhibits rights is inhibiting rights?

WASHINGTON - The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."

The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167. It now goes to the Senate where its future is uncertain.

"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."

Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and would deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.

"We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The pledge bill would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the pledge. State courts could still decide whether the pledge is valid within the state.

The legislation grew out of a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed that decision on a technicality, saying Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow did not have legal standing to sue on behalf of his daughter because the mother had custody of the child. Newdow has since revived the case and last year a U.S. District Judge ruled in his favor.

Newdow, an attorney and medical doctor, said in an interview that he hoped the bill would pass to expose the aims of its supporters. "They're willing to ruin this country so they can keep their God in our country. I love the fact that they are having a vote." He said he expected a final ruling in his case in about a year.

Supporters argued that the "under God" phrase, added to the pledge in 1954, was intrinsic to the nation's heritage and traditions and must be shielded from unelected judges. "This is an issue that clearly resonates to what we are about as a country," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Rep. Todd Akin (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., who sponsored the measure, said that denying a child the right to recite the pledge was a form of censorship. "We believe that there is a God who gives basic rights to all people and it is the job of the government to protect those rights."

Davison Douglas, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said constitutional scholars are divided over whether such congressional restrictions on judicial review would pass constitutional muster.

He noted that "past efforts to bar all federal court review of hot-button social issues have consistently failed. Hence, if this bill is enacted, it would be a highly significant landmark in terms of congressional efforts to control the actions of federal courts."

There is a companion Senate bill, but it is unclear whether the Senate will take it up in the current session.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that while he supported the pledge and disagreed with the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, the bill would "intrude on the principle of separation of powers, degrade our independent federal judiciary and set a dangerous precedent."

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., said the effort to strip courts of authority could come back to haunt his fellow conservatives if liberals gain control of Congress in the future. As an example, he said Congress could prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on a state's decision to ban guns.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that under the bill, "religious minorities will no longer have the right to go to federal court to defend their deeply held religious beliefs."

The pledge bill was part of the House GOP's "American values agenda" that House Speaker
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said would "defend America's founding principles." Another part of that agenda, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, was defeated in the House on Tuesday.

Also on Wednesday, the House was voting on legislation that would designate a 29-foot-high cross as a federal war memorial to prevent it from being removed from public land in San Diego.

And here I thought the only way they could do that was through an amendment.

"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."
Damn straight - now ban fucking religion from schools and change the pledge back to the way it was before the Christian movement in the 1970s you fucking history rewriter.

Damn straight - now ban fucking religion from schools and change the pledge back to the way it was before the Christian movement in the 1970s you fucking history rewriter.
1954 and it was mainly to be anti-Commie, which was stupid because Communists here might still believe in a god.

1954 and it was mainly to be anti-Commie, which was stupid because Communists here might still believe in a god.
OK, 1950s, I forgot, but you get the point. The only people trying to rewrite history are the inherently authoritarian Christian right, go figure.

OK, 1950s, I forgot, but you get the point. The only people trying to rewrite history are the inherently authoritarian Christian right, go figure.

That has no relevance to the pledge.

That has no relevance to the pledge.
It has in that some people, presumably christian, took it upon themselves to add the "under god" line in the pledge to begin with. And it's that exact same "under god" which poses problem.

That has no relevance to the pledge.


wtf?

they are talking about how they changed the pledge in 1954 to include "under God". how is that not relevant to the pledge?

That has no relevance to the pledge.
You're kidding right? Get out of this thread.
Not only does it have everything to do with the changing of the pledge in the first place but it has everything to do with this very fucking article and potential law.

Holy crap! They are going WAY TOO FAR! Now they are trying to prevent courts from ruling on the pledge. Here's one quote I'd like to point and laugh at:


Banning something that inhibits rights is inhibiting rights?

Good. About time Congress does something constructive instead of destructive.

wtf?

they are talking about how they changed the pledge in 1954 to include "under God". how is that not relevant to the pledge?

Really? I may have been wrong then, i thought that it has been under God for centuries.

Really? I may have been wrong then, i thought that it has been under God for centuries.


nope...

from the article posted in the OP:

Supporters argued that the "under God" phrase, added to the pledge in 1954...

besides... the title of this thread specifically talks about the pledge, so I still wonder why you would say this has nothing to do with the pledge.

besides... the title of this thread specifically talks about the pledge, so I still wonder why you would say this has nothing to do with the pledge.

I admit that I did not read the whole article, and the fact that this movement made that pledge was news to me.

This cannot be legal.

A legislature wanting to ban courts from making rulings on constitutionality with a subconstitutional law.

Ludicrous. The courts will just go "yeah, we think we will anyway, since it's what we're supposed to do. Keep your hands off of our branch, thanks."

Oh, this is sadly legal, just the premise is entirey unConstitutional.

I admit that I did not read the whole article, and the fact that this movement made that pledge was news to me.

Yeah, why be educated about a subject before sounding off on it? Why read an article before posting in a thread about it? :rolleyes:

I admit that I did not read the whole article, and the fact that this movement made that pledge was news to me.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Yeah, why be educated about a subject before sounding off on it? Why read an article before posting in a thread about it? :rolleyes:

Why the fuck do you care, i made a mistake and I admitted it now just lay off. I heard about this earlier and so i thought i didn't need to read the article.

This cannot be legal.

A legislature wanting to ban courts from making rulings on constitutionality with a subconstitutional law.

Ludicrous. The courts will just go "yeah, we think we will anyway, since it's what we're supposed to do. Keep your hands off of our branch, thanks."

IF this passes the Senate, they won't be able to do so under law and the legislature can decide what the federal courts can and cannot take.

It isn't saying that lawsuits themselves can't be brought but they can only be brought in state courts and not in the federal courts..

Oh, this is sadly legal, just the premise is entirey unConstitutional.

That's what I meant. The courts will just rule on the constitutionality of this law, and that'll be that.

Seriously, a law that denies judicial review? It's like bizarro world...

And here I thought the only way they could do that was through an amendment.
It is. The SCOTUS will hear a case they want to hear regardless of what the Congress ( or the President, for that matter ) does.

IF this passes the Senate, they won't be able to do so under law and the legislature can decide what the federal courts can and cannot take.

It isn't saying that lawsuits themselves can't be brought but they can only be brought in state courts and not in the federal courts..
If congress passes a law restricting the appeals process and preventing the courts from seeing cases resulting from a first amendment dispute, wouldn't that be making a law in the manner restricted by the first amendment?


A better question: Which has precidence, the first amendment establishment clause or article 3 sec 2.

IF this passes the Senate, they won't be able to do so under law and the legislature can decide what the federal courts can and cannot take.

It isn't saying that lawsuits themselves can't be brought but they can only be brought in state courts and not in the federal courts..

And the federal courts and supreme court will say "The constitution gives us the task to rule on constitutionality, and since this law seeks to limit that task outside the constitution, we'll say this law is unconstitutional and then we'll rule on the constitutionality of the pledge."

Well, that would be the sane thing to do, but as I already said, apparently the US is turning into bizarro world where the legislature thinks it can decide what a (Supreme) Court can and cannot rule on with a law that is itself subject to judicial review. What are they gonna do, pass a law that denies judicial review of the law that denies judicial review?

It is. The SCOTUS will hear a case they want to hear regardless of what the Congress ( or the President, for that matter ) does.
Not quite.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Congress is 'making' a regulation that prohibits the court from having appellate jurisdiction over pledge cases. Now, I think it's only a matter of time before some smartass lawyer comes up with an original jurisdiction case, but SCOTUS is always loath to approach anything that they might not have jurisdiction over (surprise surprise). It could work. Raises some interesting questions at the least.

If congress passes a law restricting the appeals process and preventing the courts from seeing cases resulting from a first amendment dispute, wouldn't that be making a law in the manner restricted by the first amendment?


A better question: Which has precidence, the first amendment establishment clause or article 3 sec 2.

The Congress has the power to decide what the federal courts can take since they are the ones that established the federal courts to begin with.

Its been done before so this isn't the first time it has occured. Right or not, it is entirely constitutional to do.

The Congress has the power to decide what the federal courts can take since they are the ones that established the federal courts to begin with.

Its been done before so this isn't the first time it has occured. Right or not, it is entirely constitutional to do.
Not the SCOTUS. It can also hear appeals from state courts, remember? What this bill is doing is stripping the SCOTUS of jurisdiction under the bits that I highlighted earlier. The question is this. If they strip the court's jurisdiction, making a law ala Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances., is such a bill constitutional because it protects an abridgement of first amendment rights?

Not the SCOTUS. It can also hear appeals from state courts, remember? What this bill is doing is stripping the SCOTUS of jurisdiction under the bits that I highlighted earlier. The question is this. If they strip the court's jurisdiction, making a law ala , is such a bill constitutional because it protects an abridgement of first amendment rights?

If this bill passes the Senate, the Supreme Court won't be able to hear the case as the Supreme Court is a federal court and this bill will prevent them from hearing the case.

If this bill passes the Senate, the Supreme Court won't be able to hear the case as the Supreme Court is a federal court and this bill will prevent them from hearing the case.
The question is if the bill stripping the jurisdiction itself is unconstitutional, because it attempts to provide for an establishment of religion.

The question is if the bill stripping the jurisdiction itself is unconstitutional, because it attempts to provide for an establishment of religion.

Umm actually...no it doesn't provide for an Establishment of Religion. As to your question...no it isn't unconstitutional as you already pointed out.

If this bill passes the Senate, the Supreme Court won't be able to hear the case as the Supreme Court is a federal court and this bill will prevent them from hearing the case.

Changing SCOTUS's jurisdiction requires an amendment, specifically to Art. 3 Sec. 2 as CSW noted. Besides, unless a law is passed protecting this particular law, someone will bring it before SCOTUS and it will likely be declared unconstitutional, then someone can bring up a case about the Pledge. I'm more concerned that Congressmen is willing to limit judicial jurisdiction just to protect two words than that someone wants two words removed from the Pledge. Smells like election year bullshit legislation to me.

Changing SCOTUS's jurisdiction requires an amendment, specifically to Art. 3 Sec. 2 as CSW noted.

No it doesn't need an amendment. Congress can make any regulation they want in regards to the Federal court system. That is what CSW pointed out. No amendment is necessary.

Besides, unless a law is passed protecting this particular law, someone will bring it before SCOTUS and it will likely be declared unconstitutional, then someone can bring up a case about the Pledge.

Unable to do so because the Constitution clearly states that Congress can make regulations over what cases the Appelant courts can take. In order to override that, you will need an amendment to take that section out of the constitution.

Umm actually...no it doesn't provide for an Establishment of Religion. As to your question...no it isn't unconstitutional as you already pointed out.
The law is protecting a law providing for the establishment of religion (yes, that is illegal). It becomes a question of which part wins out: article 3 section 2 or the first amendment. It's a good question to. I think I'll ask that to a lawyer.

The law is protecting a law providing for the establishment of religion. It becomes a question of which part wins out: article 3 section 2 or the first amendment. It's a good question to. I think I'll ask that to a lawyer.

Truth be told, it is a good question but unfortunately, I am going to hvae to go with Article 3 section 2 on this one because "under God" doesn't establish a religion.

Montesquieu is rolling over in his grave...

What happened to seperation of powers?

Not quite.

Congress is 'making' a regulation that prohibits the court from having appellate jurisdiction over pledge cases. Now, I think it's only a matter of time before some smartass lawyer comes up with an original jurisdiction case, but SCOTUS is always loath to approach anything that they might not have jurisdiction over (surprise surprise). It could work. Raises some interesting questions at the least.
As I understand it, this is something of a "gray area" in Constitutional Law, and it would be interesting to see it play out. But ... and this is a BIG "but!" ... opening this particular can of worms could backfire on the openers, especially on such a relatively innocuous issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate just quietly shelves this issue entirely.

Damn straight - now ban fucking religion from schools and change the pledge back to the way it was before the Christian movement in the 1970s you fucking history rewriter.

You are absolutely right Pants Hero. THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS ESTABLISHED by the Founders to keep religion out of everything public. The Founders hated religion and realized that it caused war. If you go to the ACLU (which, by the way, was started by the Founders) website, they have an excellent video on this called My Way.

I hate this Pledge so bad, I know it's unconstitutional, and I hate God. Why am I being oppressed? Already, I have to deal with my parents all the time, they try to put their morality on me. Luckily when I got into a bad situation one time, the school nurse was able to get me access to the services I needed, I know my parents wouldn't have.

I hate the USA, I hate Republicans and Fundies. Why don't the Republicans worry about providing us education, healthcare, childcare, food and housing, a decent pension, and a small allowance for recreation. THE WHOLE POINT OF AMERICA was so everyone could freely develop without having to worry about money. :( :(

As I understand it, this is something of a "gray area" in Constitutional Law, and it would be interesting to see it play out. But ... and this is a BIG "but!" ... opening this particular can of worms could backfire on the openers, especially on such a relatively innocuous issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate just quietly shelves this issue entirely.

Problem is, as someone pointed out, it is an election year so who knows.

Montesquieu is rolling over in his grave...

What happened to seperation of powers?

More like checks and balances -- L-Branch can limit power of the J-Branch by regulating what it can hear, L-Branch has other power over E-Branch. Each branch holds limitations on the other two so we don't end up with one dominating and then taking complete control.

As I understand it, this is something of a "gray area" in Constitutional Law, and it would be interesting to see it play out. But ... and this is a BIG "but!" ... opening this particular can of worms could backfire on the openers, especially on such a relatively innocuous issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate just quietly shelves this issue entirely.
Even if the Senate passed it I don't see this court taking up the issue at all. The liberals won't vote to hear it because they know that they most likely will lose and don't want to risk it with this court, Scalia and Thomas won't vote to hear it because they don't think that they have the jurisdiction (provided that this somehow ends up in their hands without a lower court ruling on it, eg, a direct woc from a very low court) , and Roberts doesn't want to take on such a divisive issue this early in his court. Still, makes for an interesting debate.

Truth be told, it is a good question but unfortunately, I am going to hvae to go with Article 3 section 2 on this one because "under God" doesn't establish a religion.

So forcing a captive audience to be present to an official government recitation which acknowledges the existence of a God (by the name God, in a monotheistic context, no less) isn't an establishment?

You are absolutely right Pants Hero. THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS ESTABLISHED by the Founders to keep religion out of everything public. The Founders hated religion and realized that it caused war. If you go to the ACLU (which, by the way, was started by the Founders) website, they have an excellent video on this called My Way.

1) prove that the FF founded the ACLU.

2) Prove that they actually hated religion.

3) the 1st amendment was designed to keep the country from establishing a state religion. Not to keep religion out of everything public.

I hate this Pledge so bad, I know it's unconstitutional, and I hate God. Why am I being oppressed? Already, I have to deal with my parents all the time, they try to put their morality on me. Luckily when I got into a bad situation one time, the school nurse was able to get me access to the services I needed, I know my parents wouldn't have.

You are a sad sad little troll.

Montesquieu is rolling over in his grave...

What happened to seperation of powers?

I hate this so bad. The seperation of powers gives the Supreme Court THE FINAL SAY ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. Ultimately the Constution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, NOT WHAT THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS OR PRESIDENT SAYS.

The other branches are supposed to follow the Supreme Court in doing their jobs. Why doesn't the Congress worry about the budget, that's what it is supposed to do. They should work to RAISE REVENUES, particularly from the Rich who already owe so much to society for stealing from it, in order to fully-fund education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, food and housing!!!

If this passes, I'm seriously worried about fascism in the country. The Supreme Court is the only thing that protects now. :( I hope it will still be able to. I would die to defend SCOTUS rulings, especially the ones that were decided correctly as interpreted by the ACLU. :( :(

So forcing a captive audience to be present to an official government recitation which acknowledges the existence of a God (by the name God, in a monotheistic context, no less) isn't an establishment?

Nope because it doesn't name what God it is referring too.

I hate this so bad. The seperation of powers gives the Supreme Court THE FINAL SAY ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. Ultimately the Constution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, NOT WHAT THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS OR PRESIDENT SAYS.

Article 3 section 2 says otherwise on jurisdictional matters.

Nope because it doesn't name what God it is referring too.

So every religion that exists acknowledges the existence of a God? Every single one of them?

So every religion that exists acknowledges the existence of a God? Every single one of them?

Tell me what religion is being established with the word God.

1) prove that the FF founded the ACLU.

2) Prove that they actually hated religion.

3) the 1st amendment was designed to keep the country from establishing a state religion. Not to keep religion out of everything public.

You are a sad sad little troll.

There you go again trying to shut up people who you disagree with by false accusations of troll, just like the Republican Congress wants to do to people that hate "traditional" morality like I do so bad.

Here is a good quote from John Adams: Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!"

Tell me what religion is being established with the word God.
The Judeo-christian one. Come on, don't be dishonest.

Tell me what religion is being established with the word God.

Every one that proclaims the existence of a God.

Article 3 section 2 says otherwise on jurisdictional matters.

The Supreme Court can always say that Article 3, Section 2 means something else. One of the beauties of living in modern society is that law schools often change what is currently accepted.

I would much rather be governed by the latest legal theories than by an 18th century document, wouldn't you? Be honest.

There you go again trying to shut up people who you disagree with by false accusations of troll, just like the Republican Congress wants to do to people that hate "traditional" morality like I do so bad.

Here is a good quote from John Adams: Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!"

Do you even know what the Constitution says on who regulates the Federal Courts?

The Judeo-christian one. Come on, don't be dishonest.

Care to actualy prove it?

THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS ESTABLISHED by the Founders to keep religion out of everything public.

Sort of...

The Founders hated religion and realized that it caused war.

Please tell me you don't actually believe this.

If you go to the ACLU (which, by the way, was started by the Founders) website, they have an excellent video on this called My Way.

Yes, because the ACLU is the most impartial and unbiased source quotable.

(snip ireelevancies)

I'll agree with don't let religion into government. I'll further agree that the conservative fundies (not all the Republicans) are retarded on this. But neither you nor the Democrats make any distinction between "establishing a religion" and "acknowledging that religion played a part in the development of the country."

Do I think "under God" crosses the line? Yes. Does all mention of a Judeo-Christian deity cross the line? No.

The Judeo-christian one. Come on, don't be dishonest.

You are absolutely right CSW.

And its the worst one by far, most bloody, Crusades, etc.

At least if they put some reference to Allah in the pledge, maybe the Middle East wouldn't hate this country so much. :(

The Supreme Court can always say that Article 3, Section 2 means something else. One of the beauties of living in modern society is that law schools often change what is currently accepted.

I would much rather be governed by the latest legal theories than by an 18th century document, wouldn't you? Be honest.

Tell me what else it could me when it clearly states that Congress regulates what they can and cannot take.

Do you even know what the Constitution says on who regulates the Federal Courts?


Article 3 Section 2 Proclaims that the federal courts are regulated by Congress. It also says that they shall take any case regarding the constitution.

You are absolutely right CSW.

And its the worst one by far, most bloody, Crusades, etc.

You do realize that the Crusades were launched to regain Jeruselum from the Muslims right? You really do not know history either apparently.

At least if they put some reference to Allah in the pledge, maybe the Middle East wouldn't hate this country so much. :(

umm Allah=God :rolleyes:

Sort of...

Please tell me you don't actually believe this.

Yes, because the ACLU is the most impartial and unbiased source quotable.

I'll agree with don't let religion into government. I'll further agree that the conservative fundies (not all the Republicans) are retarded on this. But neither you nor the Democrats make any distinction between "establishing a religion" and "acknowledging that religion played a part in the development of the country."

Do I think "under God" crosses the line? Yes. Does all mention of a Judeo-Christian deity cross the line? No.

Pledgeria, your named after the Pledge, and so smart compared to people who want us to be ruled by 18th century documents.

I wish I knew more about where you come from and what grade you are in? You must do very well in history.

Two points:

1) In every case I've ever read where jurisdiction was an issue, the Court decided the jurisdiction issue first. If the Court concluded it didn't have jurisdiction, the opinion pretty much ended there--the court refused to consider any other issue in the case.

2) Judicial review is an almost universally accepted principle in Constitutional Law, and there's pretty good evidence that at least some of the founders anticipated that development (the concept shows up in The Federalist Papers). But it isn't expressly written into the Constitution. At the end of the day, the Supreme Court decides what is and isn't Constitutional because the Supreme Court has claimed that power, and the branches of government that control the nation's guns and the nation's purse strings haven't seriously challenged it.

umm Allah=God :rolleyes:

So it's an establishment of Islam then?

Here is a good quote from John Adams:

Umm . . . John Adams wasn't involved in the drafting of the Constitution.

Pledgeria, your named after the Pledge, and so smart compared to people who want us to be ruled by 18th century documents.

I wish I knew more about where you come from and what grade you are in? You must do very well in history.

1) I think you missed some of the sarcasm there.

2) That 18th century document FOUNDED OUR NATION and GOVERNS WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO.

3) Learn history CaT because it is obvious you don't know it.

Article 3 Section 2 Proclaims that the federal courts are regulated by Congress. It also says that they shall take any case regarding the constitution.

Exactly, and the Constitution changes with the times. Personally, I WANT the Supreme Court to apply the latest legal theories, in order to better our society.

For example, in the Michigan case, Justice O'Connor says the Constitution allows Affirmative Action for AT LEAST 25 more years. If we went by the words of the Constitution, we couldn't have affirmative action, and there would be so much racism. :( :(

I'm glad that our Common Ancestor has lead us to live in a free country where we are ruled by Justice and not by Intolerant (i.e. Republican/Christian) Majorities.

Pledgeria, your named after the Pledge, and so smart compared to people who want us to be ruled by 18th century documents.

I wish I knew more about where you come from and what grade you are in? You must do very well in history.

(1) My last name is Pledger.
(2) I'm 28. That's what, 2 or 3 times your age?
(3) You're pathetic.

So it's an establishment of Islam then?

See? That's what I'm talking about. It isn't establishing any religion whatsoever.

(1) My last name is Pledger.
(2) I'm 28. That's what, 2 or 3 times your age?
(3) You're pathetic.

Pledge, after I support you, you get angry like this: :mad: .

Why because you want to pretend to be Republican for the upcoming election so that we lose, and then go back to our true beliefs.

The truth is that most Americans agree with Democrats, so we should just be honest about things.

Have you read this Nation article?

It's time to break a taboo and place the word "socialism" across the top of the page in a major American progressive magazine. Time for the left to stop repressing the side of ourselves that the right finds most objectionable. Until we thumb our noses at the Democratic pols who have been calling the shots and reassert the very ideas they say are unthinkable, we will keep stumbling around in the dark corners of American politics, wondering how we lost our souls--and how to find them again.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060417/aronson

Exactly, and the Constitution changes with the times.

Hmm no it doesn't CaT.

Personally, I WANT the Supreme Court to apply the latest legal theories, in order to better our society.

Not necessarily a good idea.

For example, in the Michigan case, Justice O'Connor says the Constitution allows Affirmative Action for AT LEAST 25 more years. If we went by the words of the Constitution, we couldn't have affirmative action, and there would be so much racism. :( :(

AA=Reverse discrimination.

I'm glad that our Common Ancestor has lead us to live in a free country where we are ruled by Justice and not by Intolerant (i.e. Republican/Christian) Majorities.

Grow up. No one is buying your little act.

2) Prove that they actually hated religion.

3) the 1st amendment was designed to keep the country from establishing a state religion. Not to keep religion out of everything public.

The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."
"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."
Supporters argued that the "under God" phrase, added to the pledge in 1954, was intrinsic to the nation's heritage and traditions and must be shielded from unelected judges. "This is an issue that clearly resonates to what we are about as a country," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.


Time for your dose of fact. Suppository form. Bend over.

Our founding fathers were devout Christians who based this nation on the Bible? Oh my. Well, lets get some opinions from the Founding Fathers themselves, eh? Arranging in alphabetical order. Why? Because I like it.

Lets start with John Adams, one of my favorites.
John Adams (1735-1826)
Second President of the United States (1797-1801)

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.
-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756, explaining how his independent opinions would create much difficulty in the ministry, in Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 88, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
-- John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, also from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.
-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D. Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul)


Alright, so Jonny is a bit hard-core. I'm sure friendly Mr. Franklin will be the very opitime of a good Christian!

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
American public official, writer, scientist, and printer who played a major part in the American Revolution

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.
-- Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.
-- Benjamin Franklin, quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.
-- Benjamin Franklin (attributed: source unknown)

Um...alright. Thomas Jefferson will prove the US is a Christian nation!

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
The third President of the United States (1801-1809)

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 (capitalization of the word god is retained per original; see Positive Atheism's Historical Section)

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347

I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879); Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948)

Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Richard Rush, 1813

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson's thorough research of this matter.

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800

I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 1:545

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Damn it Tommy, shut up! You're not helping me prove to these nice people that Christianity was built into our nation by the Founding Fathers! In fact, you're being down-right hostile towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular!

I can only hope that James Madison, Father of our Constitution, can save us!
After all, it is that document that is the supreme law!

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.
-- James Madison, letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Thats not a good start, James....

I have ever regarded the freedom of religious opinions and worship as equally belonging to every sect.
-- James Madison, letter to Mordecai Noah, May 15, 1818, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

The general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who are not, ministers of the gospel.
-- James Madison, 1790, Papers, 13:16

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.
-- James Madison, letter to Bradford, January 1774, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774, quoted from Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 37, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect ... Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony, and most favorable to the advancement of truth.
-- James Madison, letter to Dr. De La Motta, August 1820 (Madison, 1865, III, pages 178-179), quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.
-- James Madison, veto message, February 21, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill to fund "pious charity" organized by the Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, saying that a project comparable to the modern "Charitible Choice" scheme of the George W. Bush administration gives religious societies legal agency in performing a public and civil duty

And smacking down a faith-based initiative! How dare you!


Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land in the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and a precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."
-- James Madison, veto message, February 28, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill granting public lands to a Baptist Church in Mississippi Territory. Quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom. Also in Gaillard Hunt, The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 8, (1908), p. 133.

Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there can ot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
-- James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June, 1778, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief


AAAAAHHHH!!! Washington, you are my only hope!

George Washington (1732-1799)
The first President of the United States (1789-1797)

Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.
-- George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 495, quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Among many other weighty objections to the Measure, it has been suggested, that it has a tendency to introduce religious disputes into the Army, which above all things should be avoided, and in many instances would compel men to a mode of Worship which they do not profess.
-- George Washington, to John Hancock, then president of Congress, expressing opposition to a congressional plan to appoint brigade chaplains in the Continental Army (1777), quoted from a letter to Cliff Walker from Doug Harper (2002) ††

(Sorry about the long post. But, like the noble suppository, however, it's neccesary. The list I copied from someone on this forum who's name I don't recall. I'm not plagarizing... I'm just forgetful.)

See? That's what I'm talking about. It isn't establishing any religion whatsoever.

Bullcrap. You dodged what I said. It is an establishment against those religions that do not beleive in a God, or in a singular God or a God in the male form.

(2) I'm 28. That's what, 2 or 3 times your age?
(3) You're pathetic.

Classic! I love it. Thanks :D

Care to actualy prove it?
The intent is sufficently clear. I've done some digging, by the way, and the closest are a string of reconstruction era cases which are split. Ex parte McCardle removed habeas corpus jurisdiction from the courts in one case, and the act was upheld, but later United States v. Klein the court held that attempting to actively subvert the constitution by stripping jurisdiction was unconstitutional. So it's a toss-up, hinging upon the question I asked earlier. Is this a blatant attempt to subvert the constitution by forbidding the Judiciary from ruling on a first amendment issue, the merits of the case put aside?

Wow, everyone is missing the point. Whether the pledge is Constitutional is not relavent. As soon as the Senate passes the bill and President Bush signs it the Supreme Court will be denied jurisdiction on the matter. This is a perfectly Constitutional move that is a vital part of our system of checks on the Judiciary. If the bill does not pass the Senate then any crackpot from the ACLU can start to try to get 5 judges to go over the heads of 85% of the American people to omit God from the pledge....

Time for your dose of fact. Suppository form. Bend over.


Have you been going to the Positive Atheism website without crediting them?

To take the fundy view for a second, but only for a second, seeing as they are too dumb to use a computer: They would point out that most of your quotes are taken out of context and were either originally merely anti-Catholic (not anti-Christian), anti-Anglican, or their frustration at the differences between denominations.

Wow, everyone is missing the point. Whether the pledge is Constitutional is not relavent. As soon as the Senate passes the bill and President Bush signs it the Supreme Court will be denied jurisdiction on the matter. This is a perfectly Constitutional move that is a vital part of our system of checks on the Judiciary. If the bill does not pass the Senate then any crackpot from the ACLU can start to try to get 5 judges to go over the heads of 85% of the American people to omit God from the pledge....
If it violates the separation of powers (most likely) then it is going to be held to be unconstitutional.

Wow, everyone is missing the point. Whether the pledge is Constitutional is not relavent. As soon as the Senate passes the bill and President Bush signs it the Supreme Court will be denied jurisdiction on the matter. This is a perfectly Constitutional move that is a vital part of our system of checks on the Judiciary. If the bill does not pass the Senate then any crackpot from the ACLU can start to try to get 5 judges to go over the heads of 85% of the American people to omit God from the pledge....

Barry, please. If you ran our country we would be effectively fascist. The fact is EXTREMISM in any form is a VICE, and that was proved by the Election of 1964. Stop trying to opppress us with liberty. The true facts of things is that people are so stupid and need government help to run their lives. This is espeically true of fundies, but they are too stupid to vote for the party that wants to give them healthcare and childcare.

Have you ever read: What's Wrong with Kansas?

Have you been going to the Positive Atheism website without crediting them?

Nope. It was like a smart-bomb against this kind of bullsh*t when I saw it a while back, so I copied it from an NSer who posted it. I've no idea who, and no one's ever claimed it when I post it.

To take the fundy view for a second, but only for a second, seeing as they are too dumb to use a computer: They would point out that most of your quotes are taken out of context and were either originally merely anti-Catholic (not anti-Christian), anti-Anglican, or their frustration at the differences between denominations.

Some of them obviously are. But it's hard to read 'As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...' as anything but proof of a purely secular founding of our noble state.

If it violates the separation of powers (most likely) then it is going to be held to be unconstitutional.

Yes CSW, you are absolutely right!

Thank our common ancestor for evolving us to the point that we have a Supreme Court, and are not ruled by capitalist Rule of the Jungle anymore!! :)

The concept of "God" is what seperated America from the evils of Soviet Communism. That is what spurred the addition of "God" to the pledge. Removing it would be a victory for the wild secular liberal lobby who want to see the will of 85% of the people thwarted. By removing God from the pledge you take him that much further out of the public square. The more the far left can undermine and destroy any mention of anything to do with Christianity the more victories they will win on Abortion, Gay marriage, and the buildup of federal power. They know this. It is a stealthy effort. Congress and the President will stop them, for now.

Wow, everyone is missing the point. Whether the pledge is Constitutional is not relavent. As soon as the Senate passes the bill and President Bush signs it the Supreme Court will be denied jurisdiction on the matter. This is a perfectly Constitutional move that is a vital part of our system of checks on the Judiciary. If the bill does not pass the Senate then any crackpot from the ACLU can start to try to get 5 judges to go over the heads of 85% of the American people to omit God from the pledge....

Wow, you're missing the point too. This law is in and of itself a violation of the concept of seperation of powers. The courts are able to adress any case they want as long as it revolves around american law and the American constitution (See, Corny's favorite subsection of the constitution for this.). Sowwy.

Besides which, just because the majority beleives something doesn't mean they can force their religious belief on the minority. That's why we have the fucking first ammendmant.

hmm....There's something in the back of my mind this reminds me of...

Some of them obviously are. But it's hard to read 'As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...' as anything but proof of a purely secular founding of our noble state.

Kinda funny to state since the Declaration of Independence clearly mentions God in it.

If it violates the separation of powers (most likely) then it is going to be held to be unconstitutional.
Article III of the Constitution
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. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

yup, I was right

The concept of "God" is what seperated America from the evils of Soviet Communism. That is what spurred the addition of "God" to the pledge. Removing it would be a victory for the wild secular liberal lobby who want to see the will of 85% of the people thwarted. By removing God from the pledge you take him that much further out of the public square. The more the far left can undermine and destroy any mention of anything to do with Christianity the more victories they will win on Abortion, Gay marriage, and the buildup of federal power. They know this. It is a stealthy effort. Congress and the President will stop them, for now.

Wait.... Are you suggesting that being godless makes you a communist? What the hell am I, then?

God doesn't belong in government. He has his place in churches, homes, businesses, and in between people, but he doesn't not have his place in government. Why is that? Because we live in a nation where the government doesn't tell us what to beleive. It's something that you should be proud of, not trying to destroy.

Nope. It was like a smart-bomb against this kind of bullsh*t when I saw it a while back, so I copied it from an NSer who posted it. I've no idea who, and no one's ever claimed it when I post it.

Some of them obviously are. But it's hard to read 'As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...' as anything but proof of a purely secular founding of our noble state.

Most fundies I've talked to counterargue, that he was meaning that we weren't governed by the Bible as in Shari'a Law in Islam.

The most worst piece of unconstitutional Constitutions is the one that John Adams wrote for Massachusetts:

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This is the preamble, and it's not even the worst part of it. Luckily, more recent legal theories have redefined the First Amendment since those days, or things would be really bad nowadays.

Article III of the Constitution
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. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

yup, I was right
The intent is sufficently clear. I've done some digging, by the way, and the closest are a string of reconstruction era cases which are split. Ex parte McCardle removed habeas corpus jurisdiction from the courts in one case, and the act was upheld, but later United States v. Klein the court held that attempting to actively subvert the constitution by stripping jurisdiction was unconstitutional. So it's a toss-up, hinging upon the question I asked earlier. Is this a blatant attempt to subvert the constitution by forbidding the Judiciary from ruling on a first amendment issue, the merits of the case put aside?

Again. RTFT.

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Yep! Looks like the Founding fathers believed in God. So much for your opening statements about the Founding Fathers.

This is the preamble, and it's not even the worst part of it. Luckily, more recent legal theories have redefined the First Amendment since those days, or things would be really bad nowadays.

:rolleyes:

The intent is sufficently clear. I've done some digging, by the way, and the closest are a string of reconstruction era cases which are split. Ex parte McCardle removed habeas corpus jurisdiction from the courts in one case, and the act was upheld, but later United States v. Klein the court held that attempting to actively subvert the constitution by stripping jurisdiction was unconstitutional. So it's a toss-up, hinging upon the question I asked earlier. Is this a blatant attempt to subvert the constitution by forbidding the Judiciary from ruling on a first amendment issue, the merits of the case put aside?

Again. RTFT.

CSW you are absolutely right, and guess who gets to rule whether this Anti-First Amendment Law is constitutional at all.... the Supreme Court. We we can thank our common ancestor for that!

Barry, please. If you ran our country we would be effectively fascist. The fact is EXTREMISM in any form is a VICE, and that was proved by the Election of 1964. Stop trying to opppress us with liberty. The true facts of things is that people are so stupid and need government help to run their lives. This is espeically true of fundies, but they are too stupid to vote for the party that wants to give them healthcare and childcare.

Have you ever read: What's Wrong with Kansas?


ok, first of all your absurd comments leave me speechless. "oppress us with liberty"?????????????????
"people are stupid and need government to run their lives

that sounds like a call to fascism if I ever heard it my friend.

has it ever crossed your mind that maybe the American people have never stood for an all powerful mother pig federal goverment who they can suck off of???

I was forced to read whats the matter with kansas by a professor of mine a while ago. Let me sum up the book.

Red state blue state divide is false and not accurate
but really, red state Republicans are so dumb!

the book was confusing, misleading, and insulting. A barf bag of boring bull.

Yep! Looks like the Founding fathers believed in God. So much for your opening statements about the Founding Fathers.



:rolleyes:

It's gets worse:

Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

Kinda funny to state since the Declaration of Independence clearly mentions God in it.

I'm relatively certain the DoI isn't a legal document and has little to do with our government.

Problem is, as someone pointed out, it is an election year so who knows.
If you don't mind wading through the legalese, this article on this particular subject is very interesting: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9901/articles/clinton.html

ok, first of all your absurd comments leave me speechless. "oppress us with liberty"?????????????????
"people are stupid and need government to run their lives

that sounds like a call to fascism if I ever heard it my friend.

has it ever crossed your mind that maybe the American people have never stood for an all powerful mother pig federal goverment who they can suck off of???

I was forced to read whats the matter with kansas by a professor of mine a while ago. Let me sum up the book.

Red state blue state divide is false and not accurate
but really, red state Republicans are so dumb!

the book was confusing, misleading, and insulting. A barf bag of boring bull.

I like you Barry, you are a astaunch Republican. Thank goodness you are a vast minority of the American people, like 10%, the problem is how do the 90% get back their Congress.

If you don't mind wading through the legalese, this article on this particular subject is very interesting: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9901/articles/clinton.html


First Things is a Catholic extremist organization like Opus Dei, and has been disproved by the Da Vinci Code.

Nope. It was like a smart-bomb against this kind of bullsh*t when I saw it a while back, so I copied it from an NSer who posted it. I've no idea who, and no one's ever claimed it when I post it.



Some of them obviously are. But it's hard to read 'As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...' as anything but proof of a purely secular founding of our noble state.

"we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights"

yup, purely secular.
Our first President ( who was elected unanimously), firmly believed that any Democracy would fail once it lost its religion ( at a time when the U.S. was 99% Christian.

I hate this so bad. The seperation of powers gives the Supreme Court THE FINAL SAY ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. Ultimately the Constution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, NOT WHAT THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS OR PRESIDENT SAYS.
You need to read this ( although I would be willing to bet that you won't ):

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9901/articles/clinton.html

If congress passes a law restricting the appeals process and preventing the courts from seeing cases resulting from a first amendment dispute, wouldn't that be making a law in the manner restricted by the first amendment?


A better question: Which has precidence, the first amendment establishment clause or article 3 sec 2.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Interesting, wasn't aware of this line. But in answer to the question, amendments overrule previous constitution.

It's gets worse:

Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

Oh brother. I guess you forgot when this was written and the CULTURE of the time? You do realize that we were more religious back then than we are today?

First Things is a Catholic extremist organization like Opus Dei, and has been disproved by the Da Vinci Code.
Are you afraid to read it?

Most fundies I've talked to counterargue, that he was meaning that we weren't governed by the Bible as in Shari'a Law in Islam.

The most worst piece of unconstitutional Constitutions is the one that John Adams wrote for Massachusetts:

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This is the preamble, and it's not even the worst part of it. Luckily, more recent legal theories have redefined the First Amendment since those days, or things would be really bad nowadays.

Well the truth of the matter is that these founders weren't Atheist. Many were Deist. You'll note no mention of Jesus. It's a horrid misinterpretation to say that this means Johnny would have supported a Christianized United States.

Yes CSW, you are absolutely right!

Thank our common ancestor for evolving us to the point that we have a Supreme Court, and are not ruled by capitalist Rule of the Jungle anymore!! :)

What on earth does capitalism have to do with Congress removing jurisdiction. Are you going on a tangent?

Well the truth of the matter is that these founders weren't Atheist. Many were Deist. You'll note no mention of Jesus. It's a horrid misinterpretation to say that this means Johnny would have supported a Christianized United States.

The other one is worse though. It seems to be specific about a religion. I'm surprised the ACLU did challenge Adams on this.

Wow, you're missing the point too. This law is in and of itself a violation of the concept of seperation of powers. The courts are able to adress any case they want as long as it revolves around american law and the American constitution (See, Corny's favorite subsection of the constitution for this.). Sowwy.

Besides which, just because the majority beleives something doesn't mean they can force their religious belief on the minority. That's why we have the fucking first ammendmant.

article III
( read it this time)
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. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

I'm relatively certain the DoI isn't a legal document and has little to do with our government.

I was just pointing out that our founding fathers did recognize God and that they didn't hate religion to Conscience and Truth which is odd since he doesn't know what a truth is if it hit him upside the head with a 2x4.

I really shouldn't be feeding the troll but he just makes it to easy.

What on earth does capitalism have to do with Congress removing jurisdiction. Are you going on a tangent?

In some states, Courts have begun to rule that education and healthcare are rights and that the Legislatures have to fund them to a certain point, and even raise taxes if necessary. I'm hoping the Supreme Court embraces this and mandates the Congress fully fund education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food, as well as a good pension FOR ALL!

First Things is a Catholic extremist organization like Opus Dei, and has been disproved by the Da Vinci Code.

Do you actually want to try that again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei

article III
( read it this time)
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. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
For the third time:
I've done some digging, by the way, and the closest are a string of reconstruction era cases which are split. Ex parte McCardle removed habeas corpus jurisdiction from the courts in one case, and the act was upheld, but later United States v. Klein the court held that attempting to actively subvert the constitution by stripping jurisdiction was unconstitutional. So it's a toss-up, hinging upon the question I asked earlier. Is this a blatant attempt to subvert the constitution by forbidding the Judiciary from ruling on a first amendment issue, the merits of the case put aside? RTFT.

I was just pointing out that our founding fathers did recognize God and that they didn't hate religion to Conscience and Truth which is odd since he doesn't know what a truth is if it hit him upside the head with a 2x4.

I really shouldn't be feeding the troll but he just makes it to easy.

Corneliu, don't hate me because I'm Democratic!

Where are you from?

If it violates the separation of powers (most likely) then it is going to be held to be unconstitutional.

You might want to google an 1869 Supreme Court case called Ex Parte McCardle. It's a foundational case of Constitutional Law.

You might also want to see the following link:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm

In short, the Supreme Court has frequently accepted the preposition that Congress may limit what types of cases it may hear.

The power isn't necessarily plenary--see, for example, US v. Klein. But it's pretty broad.

I doubt the wisdom of such a proposal as the one Congress is now considering. But if it passes, it'll probably withstand Constitutional attack.

Wait.... Are you suggesting that being godless makes you a communist? What the hell am I, then?

God doesn't belong in government. He has his place in churches, homes, businesses, and in between people, but he doesn't not have his place in government. Why is that? Because we live in a nation where the government doesn't tell us what to beleive. It's something that you should be proud of, not trying to destroy.

No I am suggesting that the communists in the Soviet Union during the Cold war preached athiesm to further their agenda of government knows best. Our revulsion at that tactic led to us further embracing God in the 1950's. You have your opinion, 85% of America and the Congress and the President see it differently.

I was just pointing out that our founding fathers did recognize God and that they didn't hate religion to Conscience and Truth which is odd since he doesn't know what a truth is if it hit him upside the head with a 2x4.

I really shouldn't be feeding the troll but he just makes it to easy.

You know what's really funny? Troll vs. troll. Barrygold v. CaT. Want some popcorn?

You might want to google an 1869 Supreme Court case called Ex Parte McCardle. It's a foundational case of Constitutional Law.

You might also want to see the following link:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm

In short, the Supreme Court has frequently accepted the preposition that Congress may limit what types of cases it may hear.

The power isn't necessarily plenary--see, for example, US v. Klein. But it's pretty broad.

I doubt the wisdom of such a proposal as the one Congress is now considering. But if it passes, it'll probably withstand Constitutional attack.

Ignorant LawStudent thank our common ancestor for your presence. It is important that you learn the latest legal theories and apply them as a lawyer and judge.

The fact is, the idea that a normal person can read the Constitution and that it should mean what it means in ordinary language is stupid. We need lawyers to intervene and make sure that our Constitution is tolerance, diverse and accepts all people and provides benefits, not restrictions to our lives.

LawStudent will do just that.

"we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights"

yup, purely secular.
Our first President ( who was elected unanimously), firmly believed that any Democracy would fail once it lost its religion ( at a time when the U.S. was 99% Christian.

Yes, purely secular. You'll note I didn't say Atheist.

As to President Washington, quote me him if you're so sure. Then quote me where he says his supposed beliefs about religiouslity leading to a better society means that we have the right to use the government to further religion. I have my quotes. Show me yours.

You know what's really funny? Troll vs. troll. Barrygold v. CaT. Want some popcorn?

Even though I hate what Barry says, he has a right to say it under the First Amendment, except in the public arena (seperation of church and state), but on this forum he can.

Don't accuse troll just so you can end the debate.

The other one is worse though. It seems to be specific about a religion. I'm surprised the ACLU did challenge Adams on this.

Because the ACLU was founded in 1920! :rolleyes:

You might want to google an 1869 Supreme Court case called Ex Parte McCardle. It's a foundational case of Constitutional Law.

You might also want to see the following link:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm

In short, the Supreme Court has frequently accepted the preposition that Congress may limit what types of cases it may hear.

The power isn't necessarily plenary--see, for example, US v. Klein. But it's pretty broad.

I doubt the wisdom of such a proposal as the one Congress is now considering. But if it passes, it'll probably withstand Constitutional attack.
I think that Klein is more relevant, if only because it deals with a separation of powers argument, and one side attempting to subvert the constitution directly and permanently (the law in question in McCardle was extremely limited and only revoked jurisdiction through a revocation of a law granting habeas corpus jurisdiction for one year, which I think is a different thing then revoking jurisdiction granted in the constitution (or at least implied by)), exactly what happened in Klein, except dealing with congress ordering the court to ignore a presidential pardon. In this case, congress is ordering the courts to ignore a section of the constitution itself, infringing upon the powers inherent to the court, similar to how they infringed upon the rights inherent to the executive in Klein.

Yes, purely secular. You'll note I didn't say Atheist.

As to President Washington, quote me him if you're so sure. Then quote me where he says his supposed beliefs about religiouslity leading to a better society means that we have the right to use the government to further religion. I have my quotes. Show me yours.

Why would anyone under 30 try to embrace religion, it is only used to oppress youth and to scare us from having sex.

I like you Barry, you are a astaunch Republican. Thank goodness you are a vast minority of the American people, like 10%, the problem is how do the 90% get back their Congress.

According to the most recent Gallup poll 41% of Americans call themselves Conservative
19% call themselves liberal

87% support keeping God in the pledge.

I don't know where the hell your fuzzy numbers come from but mine come from gallup...oh and to be more likeable, heres a happy face!:D

Corneliu, don't hate me because I'm Democratic!

Oh I don't hate you as a democrat. My soon to be roommate is a democrat.

Where are you from?

Why I'm from the USA in the state of Pennsylvania.

Because the ACLU was founded in 1920! :rolleyes;

You are untrue, I know the ACLU was founded in order to protect the Constitution and the Flag.

Who founded it if it wasnt the Founders?

Oh I don't hate you as a democrat. My soon to be roommate is a democrat.

Why I'm from the USA in the state of Pennsylvania.

And you are a Green Party?

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Interesting, wasn't aware of this line. But in answer to the question, amendments overrule previous constitution.

Not so, the Supreme court has consistantly held that Congress has the right to remove jurisdiction from all parts of the Constitution. Look it up, you will see.

You know what's really funny? Troll vs. troll. Barrygold v. CaT. Want some popcorn?

Sure!

*munches on some popcorn*

For the third time:
I've done some digging, by the way, and the closest are a string of reconstruction era cases which are split. Ex parte McCardle removed habeas corpus jurisdiction from the courts in one case, and the act was upheld, but later United States v. Klein the court held that attempting to actively subvert the constitution by stripping jurisdiction was unconstitutional. So it's a toss-up, hinging upon the question I asked earlier. Is this a blatant attempt to subvert the constitution by forbidding the Judiciary from ruling on a first amendment issue, the merits of the case put aside? RTFT.

Congress has done this dozens of time. It is in the Constitution for Gods sake. Surely you are aware of the recent GITMO ruling. The Justices almost threw the cases out because Congress had removed jurisdiction since it came before them. Do more digging.

Why would anyone under 30 try to embrace religion, it is only used to oppress youth and to scare us from having sex.

To be honest I have no idea how anyone can embrace a religion, and have never been satisfactorally answered on that point.

In my most humble opinion, a belief behind which there is no proof is not one that the wise allow into their heads.

You are untrue, I know the ACLU was founded in order to protect the Constitution and the Flag.

Who founded it if it wasnt the Founders?

Roger Nash Baldwin along with Crystal Eastman and Albert DeSilver. It was an offshoot of the National Civil Liberties Bureau which split from the Civil Liberties Bureau.

You know what's really funny? Troll vs. troll. Barrygold v. CaT. Want some popcorn?

How have I insulted anyone? Surely nothing on purpose.

Congress has done this dozens of time. It is in the Constitution for Gods sake. Surely you are aware of the recent GITMO ruling. The Justices almost threw the cases out because Congress had removed jurisdiction since it came before them. Do more digging.
And yet they didn't. Wonder why?

You are untrue, I know the ACLU was founded in order to protect the Constitution and the Flag.

Who founded it if it wasnt the Founders?

Corneliu's right on the ACLU. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU)

Credit where credit is due.:)

And you are a Green Party?

What makes you say that?

Roger Nash Baldwin along with Crystal Eastman and Albert DeSilver. It was an offshoot of the National Civil Liberties Bureau which split from the Civil Liberties Bureau.

Those were names of lesser known Founders, I'm sure.

I don't recognize the names, but I know the ACLU was founded by the Founders.

Not so, the Supreme court has consistantly held that Congress has the right to remove jurisdiction from all parts of the Constitution. Look it up, you will see.
No they haven't. As ILS and I were talking about, there is plenty of case law in which the scotus has held that congress does not have a plenary right to revoke jurisdiction.

We need lawyers to intervene and make sure that our Constitution is tolerance, diverse and accepts all people and provides benefits, not restrictions to our lives.

.

as opposed to reading what it says and going by that. This is one of the reasons that Bush won in 2004. No more activist judges. Thank the Lord.

Corneliu's right on the ACLU. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU)

Credit where credit is due.:)

Ironiclly that is where I'm getting my information. :D

Even the ACLU website itself states it!

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920.

Goes to show what research can come up with :D

Why is this even a struggle, isn't anything the majority of congress votes on law?

Congress>all other forms of goverment.

Unless these judges are prepared to get thier asses canned for being "activist judges" they best stick to the pledge the way it was intended to be.. God and all..

Course I'll do whatever I want anyway, if they officaly take God out of the pledge I won't burn a flag.

I'll just take a huge dump on it.

How have I insulted anyone? Surely nothing on purpose.

...I"m debating with myself whether or not to say "stupidity insults me".

I'm a good debater...:D

Ironiclly that is where I'm getting my information. :D

I wonder if perhaps he's messing with you...

'Those were names of lesser known Founders, I'm sure.'

...

Yes, purely secular. You'll note I didn't say Atheist.

As to President Washington, quote me him if you're so sure. Then quote me where he says his supposed beliefs about religiouslity leading to a better society means that we have the right to use the government to further religion. I have my quotes. Show me yours.

Well I never made the second claim that you want me to prove. You made that one up.:p

But, yeah.."Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

To be honest I have no idea how anyone can embrace a religion, and have never been satisfactorally answered on that point.

In my most humble opinion, a belief behind which there is no proof is not one that the wise allow into their heads.

That has nothing to do with the Jurisdiction of the Courts, the pledge or anything but your personal struggles.

And yet they didn't. Wonder why?

The Court ignored the restriction of Jurisdiction in the GITMO case because the case was on the docket before jurisdiction was removed. That's why. You can read the majority opinion by John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia's dissent to find out more.

That has nothing to do with the Jurisdiction of the Courts, the pledge or anything but your personal struggles.

True. But then again, I was specifically responding to another poster's response. You're not required to respond, unless you'd like to give me that answer I'm searcing for.

I wonder if perhaps he's messing with you...

'Those were names of lesser known Founders, I'm sure.'

...

Judging by his stance, I don't think he's messing around.

Those were names of lesser known Founders, I'm sure.

I don't recognize the names, but I know the ACLU was founded by the Founders.

If you can show any evidence that the ACLU dates back before 1917 I will be shocked. Hardly the founders eh?

The Court ignored the restriction of Jurisdiction in the GITMO case because the case was on the docket before jurisdiction was removed. That's why. You can read the majority opinion by John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia's dissent to find out more.
Ex Parte McClardle was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds even though the case had already been agrued on merit. Hamdan was different because it did not explicitly restrict jurisdiction, unliked McClardle.

The blowhards and deadenders in congress who pass laws "banning" the supreme court from doing judicial review get smacked again and again in the great game of whack-a-mole called jurisprudence.

You really must wonder if any of these people took civics class.

Hi CSW

If I'd seen your posts, I never would have posted. But at any rate:

I think that Klein is more relevant, if only because it deals with a separation of powers argument, and one side attempting to subvert the constitution directly and permanently (the law in question in McCardle was extremely limited and only revoked jurisdiction through a revocation of a law granting habeas corpus jurisdiction for one year, which I think is a different thing then revoking jurisdiction granted in the constitution (or at least implied by)), exactly what happened in Klein, except dealing with congress ordering the court to ignore a presidential pardon. In this case, congress is ordering the courts to ignore a section of the constitution itself, infringing upon the powers inherent to the court, similar to how they infringed upon the rights inherent to the executive in Klein.

I agree that McCardle was limited, but if memory serves (it's been a while since I studied this) Klein was also pretty limited. It didn't really concern Congress' power to limit what the judiciary could hear so much as it concerned Congress' power to influence how the judiciary arrived at its final judgments. In that case, Congress had made a naked attempt to change an evidentiary rule (regarding whether pardons were to be taken as evidence of innocence or guilt) in order to guarantee a conviction in an ongoing trial.

So I'm not convinced that this pledge thing is a situation where one case clearly governs the situation at hand, though I personally lean towards McCardle.

More importantly, though, SCOTUS can use whichever case helps it to arrive at the decision it wants to make. And with the current lineup of the Court, I think it's pretty obvious which decision the Court wants to make. For better or for worse (I think worse).

The blowhards and deadenders in congress who pass laws "banning" the supreme court from doing judicial review get smacked again and again in the great game of whack-a-mole called jurisprudence.

You really must wonder if any of these people took civics class.

I wonder if you took a civics class if you don't know that Congress can Regulate what the Appelant courts can and cannot take.

Well I never made the second claim that you want me to prove. You made that one up.:p

But, yeah.."Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

Well I made the second one up because it's a neccesary support for your argument to go all the way. Lest I respond like I'm about to...

Hokay - President Washington calls religion signficant, neccesary for morality, and his last sentance suggests he is opposed to attacks on religion. He doesn't say anywhere that the state has any right to promote Christianity, or any other religion. One can think something's important without demanding it be part and parcel with the State(a good e.g. is Conservatives and Charity).

Judging by his stance, I don't think he's messing around.

But 'names of lesser founders'? He's either putting us on, or(and I hate to say this about a debate ally) being blockheaded on this point.

Hi CSW

If I'd seen your posts, I never would have posted. But at any rate:



I agree that McCardle was limited, but if memory serves (it's been a while since I studied this) Klein was also pretty limited. It didn't really concern Congress' power to limit what the judiciary could hear so much as it concerned Congress' power to influence how the judiciary arrived at its final judgments. In that case, Congress had made a naked attempt to change an evidentiary rule (regarding whether pardons were to be taken as evidence of innocence or guilt) in order to guarantee a conviction in an ongoing trial.

So I'm not convinced that this pledge thing is a situation where one case clearly governs the situation at hand, though I personally lean towards McCardle.

More importantly, though, SCOTUS can use whichever case helps it to arrive at the decision it wants to make. And with the current lineup of the Court, I think it's pretty obvious which decision the Court wants to make. For better or for worse (I think worse).
Truth, it can be taken either way. It's just not as clear cut as Barry Goldwater wishes it to be.

But 'names of lesser founders'? He's either putting us on, or(and I hate to say this about a debate ally) being blockheaded on this point.

You should see his other posts. He's most definitely either putting on one wail of an act or he really is as ignorant and blockeaded as he appears to be.

I think that Klein is more relevant, if only because it deals with a separation of powers argument, and one side attempting to subvert the constitution directly and permanently (the law in question in McCardle was extremely limited and only revoked jurisdiction through a revocation of a law granting habeas corpus jurisdiction for one year, which I think is a different thing then revoking jurisdiction granted in the constitution (or at least implied by)), exactly what happened in Klein, except dealing with congress ordering the court to ignore a presidential pardon. In this case, congress is ordering the courts to ignore a section of the constitution itself, infringing upon the powers inherent to the court, similar to how they infringed upon the rights inherent to the executive in Klein.
I would think that Marbury would carry greater weight, if for no other reason than that it established a precedent which was followed until the Burger Court.

Truth, it can be taken either way. It's just not as clear cut as Barry Goldwater wishes it to be.

I agree.

I'm inclined to think that this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. The Supreme Court--at least, as it stood a couple of years ago--wouldn't touch this issue with a ten-foot pole. I think that's why they rejected the Newdow case a couple of years back, even if they claimed it was for reasons of standing.

I agree.

I'm inclined to think that this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. The Supreme Court--at least, as it stood a couple of years ago--wouldn't touch this issue with a ten-foot pole. I think that's why they rejected the Newdow case a couple of years back, even if they claimed it was for reasons of standing.

And that is why I think they'll let this bill stand if it passes the Senate. They don't want to touch this issue and this bill will make sure that they dont.

Besides, most legal analysists that I have heard said the samething that you said in regards to Newdow.

Seems like this round of congressional noise pollution could be whacked down on pretty clear due process grounds vis a vis the petitioner and hs right to have his case brought to court.

At the end of the day, its always up to the SCOTUS which acts of congress fly and which dont.

I agree.

I'm inclined to think that this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. The Supreme Court--at least, as it stood a couple of years ago--wouldn't touch this issue with a ten-foot pole. I think that's why they rejected the Newdow case a couple of years back, even if they claimed it was for reasons of standing.

I still don't think they have enough justices who want to hear this to get the case into court. The liberals won't want to hear it (4 gone, mostly because they know that they will lose), Roberts doesn't want to take anything too badly controversial yet, while Kennedy won't want to take the case either, avoiding a conflict over branches (again). It's just too controversial and too inflammatory at the moment.

I still don't think they have enough justices who want to hear this to get the case into court. The liberals won't want to hear it (4 gone, mostly because they know that they will lose), Roberts doesn't want to take anything too badly controversial yet, while Kennedy won't want to take the case either, avoiding a conflict over branches (again). It's just too controversial and too inflammatory at the moment.


Indeed, and while in principle Newdow is clearly right, it isnt much of a harm compared to the large backlash a controversial decision could provoke.

As much a case of choosing battles as much as anything.

You should see his other posts. He's most definitely either putting on one wail of an act or he really is as ignorant and blockeaded as he appears to be.

Well the one about religion being little more than an excuse to keep people from having sex wasn't the most enlightened post I've seen, but I wouldn't say he's ignorant.

Indeed, and while in principle Newdow is clearly right, it isnt much of a harm compared to the large backlash a controversial decision could provoke.
It occured to me that the Court may want to avoid any proposals for a constitutional amendment involving the use of the word "God" or the placement of religious symbols. Can't say I blame them.

Well the one about religion being little more than an excuse to keep people from having sex wasn't the most enlightened post I've seen, but I wouldn't say he's ignorant.


Its called trolling, but he's protected from on-high.

Well the one about religion being little more than an excuse to keep people from having sex wasn't the most enlightened post I've seen, but I wouldn't say he's ignorant.

As I said, you should see his other posts. This is nothing.

Its called trolling, but he's protected from on-high.
He is? How does one go about obtaining this sort of protection? Is there a fee? ;)

As I said, you should see his other posts. This is nothing.


Jesus and all the saints are probably crying over our agreement on this issue.

He is? How does one go about obtaining this sort of protection? Is there a fee? ;)

The official position of The Royal Grand Duchy of New Granada is that the mod ruling on this topic is "boggling," so direct inquiries elsewhere ;)

Jesus and all the saints are probably crying over our agreement on this issue.

Watch out for the apocolyps :D

Its called trolling, but he's protected from on-high.

Nah. He's still on the 'personal opinion' side of the matter, decently far from the frontier into Trolling. But I'm lost as to how he's protected from on high, unless you're questioning the moderator's willingness to punish someone expressing those kind of views.

Nah. He's still on the 'personal opinion' side of the matter, decently far from the frontier into Trolling. But I'm lost as to how he's protected from on high, unless you're questioning the moderator's willingness to punish someone expressing those kind of views.


I'm just boggled. Theres a pretty extensive list of his trolling posts in moderation if you've got time and nothing to do.

Nah. He's still on the 'personal opinion' side of the matter, decently far from the frontier into Trolling. But I'm lost as to how he's protected from on high, unless you're questioning the moderator's willingness to punish someone expressing those kind of views.

Let me point to you the fact that he asked me if I'm a member of the green party. This after he slammed me in another thread for being a republican.

I'm just boggled. Theres a pretty extensive list of his trolling posts in moderation if you've got time and nothing to do.

Sweet. I'm going to have to look.

He said that about the Soviet Union that they had more rights than Americans?

I'm just boggled. Theres a pretty extensive list of his trolling posts in moderation if you've got time and nothing to do.

I've been to moderation, and I have to say that I see little to nothing that seems really against the rules with this guy. He's slighlty acerbic perhaps, definitely juvenile, and he disagrees with you. Other than that, I see nothing.

Let me point to you the fact that he asked me if I'm a member of the green party. This after he slammed me in another thread for being a republican.

... So if I were to ask whether you were a member of the Constitution party after giving you flak for being a registered whatever... I'd be trolling?

Come on guys. You disagree with him, and maybe he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But I've seen better evidence to label Eutrusca as a Troll(no offence, Mr. Horn:) )

I've been to moderation, and I have to say that I see little to nothing that seems really against the rules with this guy. He's slighlty acerbic perhaps, definitely juvenile, and he disagrees with you. Other than that, I see nothing.



... So if I were to ask whether you were a member of the Constitution party after giving you flak for being a registered whatever... I'd be trolling?

Come on guys. You disagree with him, and maybe he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But I've seen better evidence to label Eutrusca as a Troll(no offence, Mr. Horn:) )


Just the definition of trolling, pretending to be a character to create hyperbolized caricatures of arguments.

I've seen better evidence to label Eutrusca as a Troll(no offence, Mr. Horn:) )
No problem. I'm starting to get use to it. Which actually kind of worries me! :eek:

... So if I were to ask whether you were a member of the Constitution party after giving you flak for being a registered whatever... I'd be trolling?

Of course not but if you listen to the tone of his posts, he is most definitely trolling. He also has no idea of history, culture, or politics. He just spouts off what his BS that even those who are on the left here oppose and that's saying something.

Of course not but if you listen to the tone of his posts, he is most definitely trolling. He also has no idea of history, culture, or politics. He just spouts off what his BS that even those who are on the left here oppose and that's saying something.


Well, his character has no idea of history &c, I'm sure whatever pissant is behind the graffiti does.

Well, his character has no idea of history &c, I'm sure whatever pissant is behind the graffiti does.

And after reading one of those posts, I think C&T is a girl.

Just the definition of trolling, pretending to be a character to create hyperbolized caricatures of arguments.

I stand by my defence of him, and with the mods decision not to do anything. At most, he deserves a good official 'quiet the hell down,' but he's not a troll in the way I, or apparently Tactial Grace, would define one.

TG bans me for 2 days over a sarcastic thread for trolling/flaimbating but yet does nothing about this putz? :mad:

Now that's a double standard if I ever saw one.

Of course not but if you listen to the tone of his posts, he is most definitely trolling. He also has no idea of history, culture, or politics. He just spouts off what his BS that even those who are on the left here oppose and that's saying something.

But stupidity is not a crime - a fact many, many here can be very thankful for.

No problem. I'm starting to get use to it. Which actually kind of worries me! :eek:

I wouldn't be worried, unless they decide to ninjakill you for a buildup of repeated complaints like they did Fass. I personally never saw any reason that a select few call you a troll, but then again I'm not terribly active here.

But stupidity is not a crime - a fact many, many here can be very thankful for.



I wouldn't be worried, unless they decide to ninjakill you for a buildup of repeated complaints like they did Fass. I personally never saw any reason that a select few call you a troll, but then again I'm not terribly active here.


Stupidity isn't the issue, the issue is pretending to be stupid so that you can graffiti the forum with stupid, hyperbolized caricatures of arguments.

Um, sorry for interupting and all but i think they should take out the "Under God" and restore the original pleage and let us get on with our lives!! :mad:

And I also think that this is Bush's Fault!!!

- from a "This is Bush's Fault!!!" Party Supporter

TG bans me for 2 days over a sarcastic thread for trolling/flaimbating but yet does nothing about this putz? :mad:

Now that's a double standard if I ever saw one.

You could watch this "putz's" every move for a while, report him each time he slips up, then he'll eventually be banned. Or you'll get warned for harrassment. Either way.:p

If this bill passes the Senate, the Supreme Court won't be able to hear the case as the Supreme Court is a federal court and this bill will prevent them from hearing the case.

Not correct. The constitution states that the Supreme Court has the power to review all laws in regards to their constitutionality.

This law would prevent SCOTUS from reviewing the law on the pledge for its constitutionality.

The supremacy clause of the constitution means that the constitution trumps any other law. And the constitution allows SCOTUS to review any law for constitutionality.

Not correct. The constitution states that the Supreme Court has the power to review all laws in regards to their constitutionality.

This law would prevent SCOTUS from reviewing the law on the pledge for its constitutionality.

The supremacy clause of the constitution means that the constitution trumps any other law. And the constitution allows SCOTUS to review any law for constitutionality.

And yet Article 3 section 2 states that they won't have authority if Congress tells them that they cant.

And yet Article 3 section 2 states that they won't have authority if Congress tells them that they cant.


Its really a catch-22, congress may have the power to bar the supreme court from hearing a case as per 3.2, but the court has the power to throw out any act of congress.

Any justification will work, because the SC is the final arbiter.

An argument like "You can limit the court, but not in this case, because doing so violates XYZ."

And yet Article 3 section 2 states that they won't have authority if Congress tells them that they cant.

I could easily argue that in an issue of the constitutionality of law, and the enacting of such law, the nation, or a public official would be a party.

As such it falls under SCOTUS' original jurisdiction, which is not affected by Congressional regulation.

I could easily argue that in an issue of the constitutionality of law, and the enacting of such law, the nation, or a public official would be a party.

I bet if this passes the Senate and signed, it'll stand.

As such it falls under SCOTUS' original jurisdiction, which is not affected by Congressional regulation.'

Uhh this doesn't fall under Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Its really a catch-22, congress may have the power to bar the supreme court from hearing a case as per 3.2, but the court has the power to throw out any act of congress.

Any justification will work, because the SC is the final arbiter.

An argument like "You can limit the court, but not in this case, because doing so violates XYZ."
As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread already, there are differing opinions ... among those who have cause to know ... on this issue. For one of them which differs with your own see: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9901/articles/clinton.html

Its really a catch-22, congress may have the power to bar the supreme court from hearing a case as per 3.2, but the court has the power to throw out any act of congress.

Any justification will work, because the SC is the final arbiter.

An argument like "You can limit the court, but not in this case, because doing so violates XYZ."

There are two ways to go about it. One is to say that a law which bars SCOTUS from hearing arguments about the constitution would be unconstitutional.

Secondly one could argue that in a law in which the nation enforces would by definition involve the state, or a public official, to be a party in such a case, which would make it fall under the court's original jurisdiction clause, which is not subject to Congressional regulation.

I bet if this passes the Senate and signed, it'll stand.
I tend to agree with you on this.

I bet if this passes the Senate and signed, it'll stand.

'

Uhh this doesn't fall under Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.


If the SC doesnt want to throw it out, it will stand. If they do, it wont.

Uhh this doesn't fall under Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."

If you bring party against the state's educational system for requiring your child to receit what you believe is an unconstitutional pledge, this would make the state a party.

Ergo it would fall under original jurisdiction.

IF the SC doesnt want to throw it out, it will stand. If they do, it wont.

I don't think the SCOTUS wants to touch the Pledge of Allegience so I think if this passes, it'll stand.

I am not sure if I agree that the court will just let it stand. SCOTUS tends to get really REALLY pissy when congress steps into what they traditionally view as their area. Check out City of Boerne v. Florence.

I don't think the SCOTUS wants to touch the Pledge of Allegience so I think if this passes, it'll stand.

I don't think they want to either. But I also don't think they'll stand for congress telling them that they can't.

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."

If you bring party against the state's educational system for requiring your child to receit what you believe is an unconstitutional pledge, this would make the state a party.

Ergo it would fall under original jurisdiction.

In which case, there is no applent court to turn too. Its suicide. In fact, it is really rare that they actually use their power of original jurisdiction.

And in most all of these cases (not using supreme court to actually decide it) its a lawsuit against the school district itself and not the state. Because of this, it is not part of the original jurisdiction mandate.

Holy crap! They are going WAY TOO FAR! Now they are trying to prevent courts from ruling on the pledge. Here's one quote I'd like to point and laugh at:


Banning something that inhibits rights is inhibiting rights?
That is absolutely fucking ridiculous!!!! TO HELL WITH ANY STUPID PIECE OF SHIT FASCIST NEOCON ASSHOLES WHO SUPPORT FUCKING WITH THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY!!!

Whew...had to get that out. Seriously, let's just do the same for any other cases that we don't like. Gay rights? Nope, that's not the courts' jurisdiction anymore. Guantanamo Bay prisoner rights? Oh, that's right -- they already did that. Too bad the Court got Hamdan in before it could take effect. I am fucking through with these piece of shit, undemocratic neo-cons who claim to represent the people but vote in favor of a radically undemocratic agenda. Fuck them.

Well, they don't have to be democratic cause get this.. they're a republic!:eek:

And as a republic, the majority rules in thier descision.:eek:

And as a republic, thier authority trumps smaller branches.:eek:

Learn how our system works before you rant like a twelve year old..

In which case, there is no applent court to turn too. Its suicide. In fact, it is really rare that they actually use their power of original jurisdiction.

And in most all of these cases (not using supreme court to actually decide it) its a lawsuit against the school district itself and not the state. Because of this, it is not part of the original jurisdiction mandate.

Since when has SCOTUS ever been particularly afraid of overturning a lower court?

And, even IF this law sticks, and SCOTUS was looking for a way around it, it wouldn't take a brilliant lawyer to turn this into an original jurisdiction problem.

And the best part about life appointments is that you don't tend to care what politicians think of you.

And as a republic, thier authority trumps smaller branches.:eek:

Learn how our system works before you rant like a twelve year old..

In our system there are no smaller branches. All are seperate, all are equal, all have checks and balances against the other.

learn how our system works before you...well...you know.

And, even IF this law sticks, and SCOTUS was looking for a way around it, it wouldn't take a brilliant lawyer to turn this into an original jurisdiction problem.

The problem being that any lawsuit won't involve a state but a school district in that state. School districts are runned by the towns and not by the state. Because of this, it won't fall under Original jurisdiction.

And the best part about life appointments is that you don't tend to care what politicians think of you.

Yea but if you violate the law, there is always impeachment.

The problem being that any lawsuit won't involve a state but a school district in that state. School districts are runned by the towns and not by the state. Because of this, it won't fall under Original jurisdiction.



Yea but if you violate the law, there is always impeachment.

Again, if you go through original jurisdiction, the law does not apply.

Additionally, as I said the constitutional argument is questionable. If it is the power of the court to review laws passed by Congress, can congress simply say "no you can't do that?" Would such a law violate the inherent seperation of powers within the constitution?

There is not always a direct connection between the most obvious reading of the constitution, and how it has been traditionally read.

Again, if you go through original jurisdiction, the law does not apply.

Again, you are not listening to what I said.

Additionally, as I said the constitutional argument is questionable. If it is the power of the court to review laws passed by Congress, can congress simply say "no you can't do that?" Would such a law violate the inherent seperation of powers within the constitution?

Umm since Article 3 section 2 says that Congress can regulate what they can and cannot take....I am going to say no.

Well, they don't have to be democratic cause get this.. they're a republic!:eek:

And as a republic, the majority rules in thier descision.:eek:

And as a republic, thier authority trumps smaller branches.:eek:

Learn how our system works before you rant like a twelve year old..
Guess what...

As a Republic, you have elected officials! A democracy is where majority rule comes in! And we, the U.S.A., are a Democratic Republic!:eek:

And as a Democratic Republic in the style of American democracy, all branches are equal, hence the concept of "checks and balances!":eek:

And as an American citizen, I don't have to agree with any fucking decision my representatives make, especially stupid ones like this!:eek:

Learn how our system works before you rant like someone who thinks they know everything, but in fact, doesn't know shit...

Again, you are not listening to what I said.



Umm since Article 3 section 2 says that Congress can regulate what they can and cannot take....I am going to say no.


Corny, lawyers are paid to be cunning and to find ways around things.

Why in god's name would they sue the school district if they have to sue the state to get it before the supreme court?

The constitution may give congress that power, but at the end of the day the SC still gets to review that decision, its a catch-22.

Why in god's name would they sue the school district if they have to sue the state to get it before the supreme court?

Because the state doesn't have a say in what happens inside a school district. If you notice in every single pledge case, it is against the school district and NOT against the state. Why? because the state is a nonfactor in all of this.

The constitution may give congress that power, but at the end of the day the SC still gets to review that decision, its a catch-22.

Yes it is a catch 22 but since it is apparent that the supreme court doesn't want to touch this (as is evidence in other pledge cases from various appelant courts), I have a very strong feeling that if this law gets passed by the Senate that it will stand.

Again, you are not listening to what I said.



Umm since Article 3 section 2 says that Congress can regulate what they can and cannot take....I am going to say no.


The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law" inhibiting free speech.

yet it is a federal law that you can not threaten the president.

It's been held that constitutional systems can be moved around if there is a compelling national/state interest. I do not find it impermissable that an argument can be made that it is a compelling national interest to maintain the seperation of powers.

Because the state doesn't have a say in what happens inside a school district. If you notice in every single pledge case, it is against the school district and NOT against the state. Why? because the state is a nonfactor in all of this.



Yes it is a catch 22 but since it is apparent that the supreme court doesn't want to touch this (as is evidence in other pledge cases from various appelant courts), I have a very strong feeling that if this law gets passed by the Senate that it will stand.

As I said, there is a big difference between not wanting to do something, and being told they can't. In fact that since this is, in the court's eyes, a large non issue, I think they'd be MORE likely to fight about it, for if they let it stand, it might return on an issue they DO care about and DO want their voices heard on, and by letting this pass they would have tacitly recognized it's legitimacy.

In other words, fight for your rights to do something you don't want to do in order to secure your rights to do what you do want to do.

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law" inhibiting free speech.

What speech is being limited?

yet it is a federal law that you can not threaten the president.

Well duh.

It's been held that constitutional systems can be moved around if there is a compelling national/state interest. I do not find it impermissable that an argument can be made that it is a compelling national interest to maintain the seperation of powers.

You won't get argument out of me but the point is that a state is really not a player at the local school district.

What speech is being limited?



Well duh.

Well, my inability to threaten the president would be a limitation on my right to free speech wouldn't you say?

And as I said, 1st amendment says "congress shall make NO law", yet here....they did. And it's constitutionally valid.

As I said, there is a big difference between not wanting to do something, and being told they can't. In fact that since this is, in the court's eyes, a large non issue, I think they'd be MORE likely to fight about it, for if they let it stand, it might return on an issue they DO care about and DO want their voices heard on, and by letting this pass they would have tacitly recognized it's legitimacy.

A large non-issue? Sorry but this is a big, highly controversial issue and I do believe that the courts will use this law, if passed, as a means to not decide on it.

Because the state doesn't have a say in what happens inside a school district. If you notice in every single pledge case, it is against the school district and NOT against the state. Why? because the state is a nonfactor in all of this.



Yes it is a catch 22 but since it is apparent that the supreme court doesn't want to touch this (as is evidence in other pledge cases from various appelant courts), I have a very strong feeling that if this law gets passed by the Senate that it will stand.

Until a lawyer needs the law suit to be against the state as a point of legal arcana, then a justification is found. You're making an enormous molehill out of something completely insignificant.

As I said, there is a big difference between not wanting to do something, and being told they can't. In fact that since this is, in the court's eyes, a large non issue, I think they'd be MORE likely to fight about it, for if they let it stand, it might return on an issue they DO care about and DO want their voices heard on, and by letting this pass they would have tacitly recognized it's legitimacy.

In other words, fight for your rights to do something you don't want to do in order to secure your rights to do what you do want to do.
This is all assuming that the Court can find a legimitate Constitutional reasoning that te judiciary should be allowed to hear the case.

Well, my inability to threaten the president would be a limitation on my right to free speech wouldn't you say?

And as I said, 1st amendment says "congress shall make NO law", yet here....they did. And it's constitutionally valid.

And if you complete that line....

establishing nor prohibiting the worship there of. I love it how people keep forgetting the last part about prohibiting the worship thereof line.

A large non-issue? Sorry but this is a big, highly controversial issue and I do believe that the courts will use this law, if passed, as a means to not decide on it.

It is a non issue on the eyes of court since they have already as you have said, decided not to take it.

Nobody can FORCE an issue on SCOTUS, they take what they want to take. They don't want to take this. Which is why they might be likely to fight this, so that it can't be used against them later, on an issue they DO want to address.

And if you complete that line....

establishing nor prohibiting the worship there of. I love it how people keep forgetting the last part about prohibiting the worship thereof line.
Uh..what does that have to do with the issue at hand?

And if you complete that line....

establishing nor prohibiting the worship there of. I love it how people keep forgetting the last part about prohibiting the worship thereof line.

I don't think anyone, ever, has argued that it would be unconstitutional to allow children to speak to their god when they chose to.

It is a non issue on the eyes of court since they have already as you have said, decided not to take it.

I didn't say they didn't take it. They tossed Newdou out on a technicality which probably saved them from making a volitile decision. Even legal experts suspect that to be the case though the Supreme Court was right about the Technicality.

Nobody can FORCE an issue on SCOTUS, they take what they want to take.

Now there we will agree.

They don't want to take this. Which is why they might be likely to fight this, so that it can't be used against them later, on an issue they DO want to address.

Each regulation passed by congress still will face the courts.

I don't think anyone, ever, has argued that it would be unconstitutional to allow children to speak to their god when they chose to.

Well....I can probably get a lawyer to do just that in a pledge of allegience case stating that it is prohibiting me from worshipping God.:D

And if you complete that line....

establishing nor prohibiting the worship there of. I love it how people keep forgetting the last part about prohibiting the worship thereof line.


Enormous departure both from the wording of the constitution and from any even marginally-acceptable justification for the amended pledge.

The constitution is written "respecting the establishment of religion or preventing the free exercize thereof."

Uh..what does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Actually it has a lot to do with it if you believe the words "under God" is a prayer.

Actually it has a lot to do with it if you believe the words "under God" is a prayer.

Ruling it a prayer would immediately make it explicitly unconstitutional. The equivalent of a shotgun under the chin.

Things have to pass the lemon test, &c.

School-coerced prayers were struck down long ago and quite rightly.

Well....I can probably get a lawyer to do just that in a pledge of allegience case stating that it is prohibiting me from worshipping God.:D

ehh, nothing STOPPING you from saying god if you want to.

As for the suits against the school administrators not the state....respondeat superior (from the latin "let the master answer"). Or, to put it another way, sometimes in legal culpibility, shit flows UP hill.

The premise is that if an employee commits a tortious act in the scope of his employment, you can also sue his employer.

If the superintendant of a school institutes an arguably unconstitutional pledge, his employer is responsible for his actions. And yes superintendants are responsible to the school district, that district is itself responsible to the STATE educational department.

Arguably the theory of respondeat superior could be used to pull the state into an issue. It hasn't been done since...well, it hasn't needed to be done. These have been cases seeking injunctive relief not monitary damages, so no point in bringing the state into it. However IF there is a point, in order to force it into an area of original jurisdiction....well....

Actually it has a lot to do with it if you believe the words "under God" is a prayer.
No...The issue at hand has nothing to do with preventing people from freely exercising their right to worship, and everything to do with the government's allowing of the words "under God" in an official government pledge in public school classrooms. This is controversial because some might say that the government is endorsing monotheistic religious beliefs by having such wording in the pledge. And if you believe the pledge is a prayer, that would then make it a mandated prayer, at which point I would direct you to Engel v. Vitale. The issue has nothing to do with preventing people from freely exercising their religious beliefs in either case.

You know what I need to do? Cause I am so tired of liberals saying it's un-constitutional.

I need to find the American constitution.
And whipe my ass with it.

Maybe then, just maybe, you'd realise how stupid it sounds when you use it as a scapegoat to demeen our country on laws that actually make sense..

I mean really, this is coming from the people who think there is no republic, the judges are not bound by the same rules as everybody else? They're always has to be someone at the top to command people at the bottom, you can't just have a bunchof authority figures with differant power but equal in said power. A judge is not equal to a congressmen, if said congressmen were charged with a crime then still, a judge merely decides his fate, but a jury decides if he's guilty or not. Just as a congress is the jury of us all, and decides what is and is not law.

Screw your constitution, a peice of paper written by a bunchof whackos who owned slaves and beat thier wives, written hundreds of years ago, and everyone interputs differantly.

No wonder liberals are never Christian, they got thier own loony toon Bible-thumping to preach, and they're so ignorant they can only fathom one large page of rules!:rolleyes:

You know what I need to do? Cause I am so tired of liberals saying it's un-constitutional.

I need to find the American constitution.
And whipe my ass with it.

Maybe then, just maybe, you'd realise how stupid it sounds when you use it as a scapegoat to demeen our country on laws that actually make sense..

I mean really, this is coming from the people who think there is no republic, the judges are not bound by the same rules as everybody else? They're always has to be someone at the top to command people at the bottom, you can't just have a bunchof authority figures with differant power but equal in said power. A judge is not equal to a congressmen, if said congressmen were charged with a crime then still, a judge merely decides his fate, but a jury decides if he's guilty or not. Just as a congress is the jury of us all, and decides what is and is not law.

Screw your constitution, a peice of paper written by a bunchof whackos who owned slaves and beat thier wives, written hundreds of years ago, and everyone interputs differantly.

No wonder liberals are never Christian, they got thier own loony toon Bible-thumping to preach, and they're so ignorant they can only fathom one large page of rules!:rolleyes:
The Constitution is not a scapegoat -- the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, of which all other laws must respect.

I never said there was no Republic, you moron. You confused the definition of Republic with Democracy while also confusing Democracy with Republic, in a bizarre twist of circular misunderstanding. For anyone confused with that statement, please see his ill-informed post several lines above with the :eek: displayed everywhere.

You cleary have no understanding about how American democracy works in any way, shape, or form. The idea behind the way our government is constructed is that all three branches are equal in power, each exacting a check on each other's actions to combat corruption, effectively creating a balance in power among branches. A Congress makes law, but the Court decides if its Constitutional -- checks and balances at work.

Read up on the Constitution, liberals, and conservatives, before you make posts that show as much idiocy and disregard for the facts as the above quoted one did. I can assure you that conservatives and Christian conservatives alike would agree with everything that I have typed in this post.

OK, 1950s, I forgot, but you get the point. The only people trying to rewrite history are the inherently authoritarian Christian right, go figure.


*shrug* Believe me, there was far more religion in the schools in the past than there is now.

The concept of "God" is what seperated America from the evils of Soviet Communism. That is what spurred the addition of "God" to the pledge. Removing it would be a victory for the wild secular liberal lobby who want to see the will of 85% of the people thwarted. By removing God from the pledge you take him that much further out of the public square. The more the far left can undermine and destroy any mention of anything to do with Christianity the more victories they will win on Abortion, Gay marriage, and the buildup of federal power. They know this. It is a stealthy effort. Congress and the President will stop them, for now.


Huh. Are you saying there are no liberals who are religious?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel1.htm

bullet In 1997, the US Society and Values magazine published an overview of religion in the U.S., using data from the Pluralism Project at Harvard University. 3,4 They reported:

bullet 63% of Americans (163 million) state that they are actively affiliated with a faith group:
bullet Roman Catholicism is the largest single religious group (60 million; 23%).
bullet Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches total 94 million members (36%) within 220 denominations.
bullet There are 3.8 million religiously active Jews (1.5%) ; an additional 2 million regard themselves as cultural or ethnic Jews.
bullet Estimates of Muslims vary greatly. Some surveys show that there are about 3.5 to 3.8 million Muslims (1.4 to 1.5%) in the U.S. Most Muslim sources estimate about six or seven million.
The most rapidly growing religious/spiritual/ethics grouping in the US is not an organized religion; it consists of non-believers (Atheists, Agnostics, etc.).

That's a buttload less than 85% of the country being Christian.

During 2001-FEB to APR, the Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted an American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS). It was a massive poll, questioning 50,281 American adults about their religious affiliations during 2001-FEB to APR. 2 They obtained some results that are noticeably different from the Pluralism Project's data. The differences are mainly because they asked their poll subjects what religion they considered themselves to be, rather than what religion they were actually affiliated with. Results included:
bullet 76.5% of American adults are Christian (52% Protestant; 24.5% Catholic).
bullet 14.1% do not follow any organized religion; they are Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, Secularists, or have no religious affiliation.
bullet 1.3% are Jewish.
bullet 0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
bullet 0.5% are Buddhist.
bullet 0.4% are Hindu.
bullet 0.3% are Unitarian Universalist.
bullet 0.1% are Neopagan (Druids, Pagans, Wiccans, etc)
bullet There are many more small religions, each of whom are followed by fewer than 0.1% of American adults.

Slightly better for you, I suppose. But still not 85% of the population.

Even if 85% of the country is Christian as you claim (and I, as a Christian, doubt), what right do 85% of us have to tyrannize the rest?

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm <-- James Madison's thoughts on this.

Because the ACLU was founded in 1920! :rolleyes:
Please don't confuse the issue with mere facts. ;)

Whats with these guys?? have they ever heard of separation of church and state??

Whats with these guys?? have they ever heard of separation of church and state??



They think it's a lie made up by teh ebil libruls.

And here I thought the only way they could do that was through an amendment.

Yeah, that's what I had thought about the legaization of abortion, too.
I'm kinda at a loss though, why this is such a big deal, and why there is so much outrage in NS General over this. Seems to be a non-event, and is merely symbolic.

Originally Posted by Kinda Sensible people
So forcing a captive audience to be present to an official government recitation which acknowledges the existence of a God (by the name God, in a monotheistic context, no less) isn't an establishment?
Nope because it doesn't name what God it is referring too.
So it's okay to establish religion as long as you don't say which religion? What do religious people call that nowadays -- plausible deniability? Didn't work for Nixon; doesn't work for you, either. :rolleyes:

Time for your dose of fact.
<snip>
The list I copied from someone on this forum who's name I don't recall. I'm not plagarizing... I'm just forgetful.)
Outstanding! :D If you don't mind, I'm saving this for future use, too. The credit will read: Thanks to Kroisistan and an unknown NS original poster.

Yep! Looks like the Founding fathers believed in God. So much for your opening statements about the Founding Fathers.

Irrelevant. Despite their professed personal beliefs, they also clearly insisted on separation of church and state in order to protect both from corrupting each other. So pointing to the fact that many of the individual founders professed a religious belief of some kind does nothing to help your argument, since those very religious people were the ones who took religion out of government in the first place. There is no way for you to avoid the fact that, by insisting on putting the government's imprimatur on religious pratice (as in characterizing the pledge as a prayer), you are violating the stated and documented beliefs of the founders of our nation.

In other words, you could be considered a counter-revolutionary.

Sorry, ignorant englishman here.

Just curious, is this pledge thing something you have to do in school or do you have a choice?

Sorry, ignorant englishman here.

Just curious, is this pledge thing something you have to do in school or do you have a choice?

You have a choice to recite or not to recite the pledge of allegience.

And if you complete that line....

establishing nor prohibiting the worship there of. I love it how people keep forgetting the last part about prohibiting the worship thereof line.
And I love how you keep forgetting the first part about establishing religion.

If you declare the Pledge of Allegiance to be a prayer and then give it the government seal of approval for schools to require students to recite it, or the government to require new citizens to recite it, then you are using the government to establish religion in direct violation of the Constitution. End of discussion.

It doesn't matter which religion you're talking about, or even if you're talking about all religions. People have BOTH the right to be religious and the right NOT to be religious. You cannot force non-religious people to engage in a religious act of any kind without violating the Constitution, which is probably why the words were not originally in the Pledge to begin with. Wrap your brain around it.

You have a choice to recite or not to recite the pledge of allegience.

Then what's the big deal? If you disagree with the wording then don't say it.

*shrug* Believe me, there was far more religion in the schools in the past than there is now.
On government mandate or their own volition?

Then what's the big deal? If you disagree with the wording then don't say it.

Which is what alot of us who support the phrase under god have been saying. Don't like, don't say it.

You know what I need to do? Cause I am so tired of liberals saying it's un-constitutional.

I need to find the American constitution.
And whipe my ass with it.

<snip>
And that sums you up right there -- anti-American.

Which is what alot of us who support the phrase under god have been saying. Don't like, don't say it.
Ignoring of facts does not make them go away.
The pledge was changed from its original secular version by the government in the 1950s to include under God (in the same sweeping movement that religion was requried to be put on paper money). Separation of Church and State ftw.

Ignoring of facts does not make them go away.
The pledge was changed from its original secular version by the government in the 1950s to include under God (in the same sweeping movement that religion was requried to be put on paper money). Separation of Church and State ftw.

I agree with you in principle but what I don't get is why the big deal. I you don't like the phrase 'under god' then just don't say it.

I agree with you in principle but what I don't get is why the big deal. I you don't like the phrase 'under god' then just don't say it.
Then you don't get the principle.

I agree with you in principle but what I don't get is why the big deal. I you don't like the phrase 'under god' then just don't say it.I don't. I stay silent during the "With liberty and justice for all" part too, because I'm not convinced that it is true. I consider reciting the pledge during school a waste of class time anyway, so I would be for taking it out of schools.

I agree with you in principle but what I don't get is why the big deal. I you don't like the phrase 'under god' then just don't say it.

Which is exactly right and what the Supreme Court ruled upon that it can be said but the people have a choice to say it or not.

Then you don't get the principle.

I think I get it better than you do my friend. What about the people who want to include it in their pledge? Would you ban them from saying it?

I don't. I stay silent during the "With liberty and justice for all" part too, because I'm not convinced that it is true. I consider reciting the pledge during school a waste of class time anyway, so I would be for taking it out of schools.

Fine, but would you be for banning it from schools?

And here I thought the only way they could do that was through an amendment.

It is. But I guess with all the power that they've given the president lately, they think they should be allowed to steal some from the Supreme Court.

Sorry, ignorant englishman here.

Just curious, is this pledge thing something you have to do in school or do you have a choice?
Technically, students are not required to recite the pledge. Kids have the choice to opt out of it.

However, in real life practice:

- Pledge recitals begin with the first grade or even kindergarten, when children are very young and don't even know what the pledge is. The message learned is one of positive group activity, not civil obligation or politics, so the desire to fit in and do things together with one's peers is reinforced BEFORE the meaning of the words is learned, thus making it more difficult for students to feel comfortable opting out when they are older, as opting out implies a social rejection of their peers.

- The choice to opt out is seldom actually presented to the kids. They are not told something like, "Okay, students, now all those who wish to recite the Pledge of Allegiance may do so. Those who do not, please turn to chapter 3 in your text books..." And even if that did happen, that hardly seems like either the pledging kids or the non-pledging kids would feel like they were not being singled out.

- The pledge recitation ritual involves all participants standing, placing their hands over their hearts, facing the flag hanging in the room, and reciting the pledge in unison. There is no way for any student to opt out of that without standing out in a negative way that they will, without doubt, be questioned about later. Are they anti-American? Are they rejecting their peers? Are they just trying to be different and the center of attention? Etc.

In addition, let's note that new citizens are also required to recite the pledge when they are officially given their citizenship, and that requirement comes direct from the federal government, not from some state/local level school administrator. So, if the pledge is considered a prayer, then requiring new citizens to recite it would be a violation of the first amendment.

Does anyone now get that this might be the reason the words "under God" were not included in the original pledge, even though it was written at a time when Americans were far more openly religious than they are even today?