In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Court Jesters and the Pledge of Allegiance
ref44
Member Posts: 251 ✭✭✭
Malcolm Wallop
July 2, 2002
Court Jesters and the pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Alliance is unconstitutional - or so we are told by a federal appellate court located in California. By a 2 to 1 margin the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that allowing school children to recite the Pledge is an impermissible establishment of religion. One judge had the good sense to dissent from the holding, but the other two simply defied logic, legal reasoning, and the Constitution.
To say the court's ruling is outrageous is like saying the sinking of the Titanic was unfortunate or that the events of September 11th were unpleasant. With their ruling, these two judges have effectively turned-in their judicial robes and become court jesters.
I appreciate humor as much as the next guy, but this simply is not funny. This ruling provides a clear and vivid example of why all Americans should oppose activist judges who ignore the Constitution, the law, established historical precedent and the will of the people - and instead impose their will on the rest of us by judicial fiat.
Allowing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is no more an establishment of religion than allowing students to study the Declaration of Independence which states that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." and also refers to "God" by name. If allowing students to say the Pledge is unconstitutional, perhaps students will next be barred from buying school lunches with money imprinted with the words, "In God We Trust." These judges apparently believe that Constitution bans use of the word, "God."
Their ruling shows a profound misunderstanding of both the Constitution and our history. On the issue of freedom of religion, the Constitution forbids that (1) the government establish a religion; and (2) the government prohibit the free exercise of religion. For the record, the words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The actual words are: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Merely uttering the word God is not the establishment of a religion.
Years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, correctly in my estimation, that the government could not require or force students to recite the Pledge. But these two judges went well beyond prohibiting forced recitation of the Pledge. They ruled that allowing school children to recite the pledge was unconstitutional and an "establishment of religion." If their absurd ruling stands, school children will be prohibited from beginning their school day reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
These two judges are so far off base and so wildly out of the mainstream, and have so completely tortured the plan language of the Constitution that they have violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. They have no right to impose their wacky views and opinions on the rest of us. To do so, is tyranny and does violence to the Constitution itself.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a well-deserved reputation for legal lunacy. It is the most liberal and the most frequently overturned federal appeals court in the entire nation. It is now obvious why.
What most folks don1t know is that many of the Ninth Circuit's past decisions when on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court could not win even a single vote of support - not even from the Supreme Court1s liberal justices. For example, in 1998, five cases appealed from the Ninth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court all five cases were overturned on 9-0 votes. But now America has even more striking evidence of the insanity of the Ninth Circuit - these nut-jobs believe that reciting the Pledge of Alliance is unconstitutional.
This case illustrates the need for solid judges who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and our laws. To this end, President Bush has submitted to the Senate a number of highly qualified nominees for the federal bench. Nominees who will interpret the law and Constitution as they are written, rather than imposing their views and opinions. Yet, for over 412 days, Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy have obstructed and delayed and refused even to schedule a hearing for the vast majority of President Bush's appellate court nominees. Perhaps, being told that the Pledge is unconstitutional will awaken Americans to the need for reliable and reasonable judges.
July 2, 2002
Court Jesters and the pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Alliance is unconstitutional - or so we are told by a federal appellate court located in California. By a 2 to 1 margin the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that allowing school children to recite the Pledge is an impermissible establishment of religion. One judge had the good sense to dissent from the holding, but the other two simply defied logic, legal reasoning, and the Constitution.
To say the court's ruling is outrageous is like saying the sinking of the Titanic was unfortunate or that the events of September 11th were unpleasant. With their ruling, these two judges have effectively turned-in their judicial robes and become court jesters.
I appreciate humor as much as the next guy, but this simply is not funny. This ruling provides a clear and vivid example of why all Americans should oppose activist judges who ignore the Constitution, the law, established historical precedent and the will of the people - and instead impose their will on the rest of us by judicial fiat.
Allowing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is no more an establishment of religion than allowing students to study the Declaration of Independence which states that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." and also refers to "God" by name. If allowing students to say the Pledge is unconstitutional, perhaps students will next be barred from buying school lunches with money imprinted with the words, "In God We Trust." These judges apparently believe that Constitution bans use of the word, "God."
Their ruling shows a profound misunderstanding of both the Constitution and our history. On the issue of freedom of religion, the Constitution forbids that (1) the government establish a religion; and (2) the government prohibit the free exercise of religion. For the record, the words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The actual words are: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Merely uttering the word God is not the establishment of a religion.
Years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, correctly in my estimation, that the government could not require or force students to recite the Pledge. But these two judges went well beyond prohibiting forced recitation of the Pledge. They ruled that allowing school children to recite the pledge was unconstitutional and an "establishment of religion." If their absurd ruling stands, school children will be prohibited from beginning their school day reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
These two judges are so far off base and so wildly out of the mainstream, and have so completely tortured the plan language of the Constitution that they have violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. They have no right to impose their wacky views and opinions on the rest of us. To do so, is tyranny and does violence to the Constitution itself.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a well-deserved reputation for legal lunacy. It is the most liberal and the most frequently overturned federal appeals court in the entire nation. It is now obvious why.
What most folks don1t know is that many of the Ninth Circuit's past decisions when on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court could not win even a single vote of support - not even from the Supreme Court1s liberal justices. For example, in 1998, five cases appealed from the Ninth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court all five cases were overturned on 9-0 votes. But now America has even more striking evidence of the insanity of the Ninth Circuit - these nut-jobs believe that reciting the Pledge of Alliance is unconstitutional.
This case illustrates the need for solid judges who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and our laws. To this end, President Bush has submitted to the Senate a number of highly qualified nominees for the federal bench. Nominees who will interpret the law and Constitution as they are written, rather than imposing their views and opinions. Yet, for over 412 days, Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy have obstructed and delayed and refused even to schedule a hearing for the vast majority of President Bush's appellate court nominees. Perhaps, being told that the Pledge is unconstitutional will awaken Americans to the need for reliable and reasonable judges.