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.
Options
Pledge of Allegiance is still unconstitutional
alledan
Member Posts: 19,541
Court refuses to reconsider Pledge decision
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal appeals court Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God."
The ruling means the case could go to the Supreme Court. In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman said no decision has been made about whether to appeal the ruling there.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not accept any other petitions to reconsider last June's ruling by a three-judge panel that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms.
Ruling on a lawsuit brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, the court panel decided 2-1 that Newdow's daughter should not be subjected to the words "under God" at her public school.
The court said the phrase was an endorsement of God, and the Constitution forbids public schools or other governmental entities from endorsing religion.
President Bush and Congress immediately condemned the decision, which would prevent public schoolchildren from reciting the pledge in the nine western states covered by the nation's largest -- and, critics charge, most liberal -- appeals court.
Those states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
Newdow's lawsuit began as a challenge to a 1954 decision by Congress to add the words "under God" to the pledge. The lawsuit later sidestepped into a parental rights case over a custody dispute between Newdow and his 8-year-old child's mother, Sandra Banning of Elk Grove.
In response to the court's original ruling, Banning asserted that her daughter is not harmed by reciting the pledge and is not opposed to God. Banning, who now has legal custody of the child, urged the court to consider whether Newdow even had legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter. The court said Newdow did have such legal standing.
Where there is no vision,the people perish!
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal appeals court Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God."
The ruling means the case could go to the Supreme Court. In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman said no decision has been made about whether to appeal the ruling there.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not accept any other petitions to reconsider last June's ruling by a three-judge panel that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms.
Ruling on a lawsuit brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, the court panel decided 2-1 that Newdow's daughter should not be subjected to the words "under God" at her public school.
The court said the phrase was an endorsement of God, and the Constitution forbids public schools or other governmental entities from endorsing religion.
President Bush and Congress immediately condemned the decision, which would prevent public schoolchildren from reciting the pledge in the nine western states covered by the nation's largest -- and, critics charge, most liberal -- appeals court.
Those states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
Newdow's lawsuit began as a challenge to a 1954 decision by Congress to add the words "under God" to the pledge. The lawsuit later sidestepped into a parental rights case over a custody dispute between Newdow and his 8-year-old child's mother, Sandra Banning of Elk Grove.
In response to the court's original ruling, Banning asserted that her daughter is not harmed by reciting the pledge and is not opposed to God. Banning, who now has legal custody of the child, urged the court to consider whether Newdow even had legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter. The court said Newdow did have such legal standing.
Where there is no vision,the people perish!
Comments
sigh... people aren't gonna be happy until we are in a Communist regime. [V][V]
Stress--This happens when the brain overrides the bodies basic urge to strangle the crap out of someone!!!!
As long as you have the lawsystem and lawyors enough to make a profit of twisting and turning every loophole - you will have these kinds of "problems".
But there's a good side to it, the rest of the world gets a good laugh when someone barbeques their cat in a Microwave oven and wins a lawsuit and a good portion of money - because the manual didn't state, that "Drying pets is not allowed, nor good for the pet!"
Every time some big scam or something like that, hits the news - people here sometimes wonders - "When are they gonna wake up overthere??".
Don't do anything that I've allready done - That'd be just plain STOOOOOOPID.
Iraqi: "Is it true that only 13% of American kids can find Iraq on a map?"
American reporter: "Yes, but all 13% are Marines"
"I think life should be more like TV. All of life's problems ought to be solved within 30 minutes with simple homilies. All our desires should be instantly gratified. Women should always wear tight clothes, and men should carry powerful handguns. Of course, if life was really like that, what would we watch on TV?"
- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes)
You mention that the "decision does not call the pledge unconstitutional, it just says forcing kids to say "under god" in public schools is unconstitutional".
That is not what the decision says. No one was being "forced" to say under god to begin with. The one who brought suit was not in any way being "forced" to say under god. They could remain silent during the pledge, as is the case in probably ALL school districts in the country. That was not enough for the party who brough suit to the courts-he did not want the words being said in school at all, and the courts obliged.
Once again, no one was being "forced" to say it, no one was being compelled to say it, and the courts did not rule the way you are claiming they did.
The decision says that reciting the pledge with "under god" is unconstitutional,Whether or not reciting the pledge is voluntary-which it is.
"..filling a need and helping people-thats self determination and free enterprise backing itself up all the way-thats why we are in Europe stopping Hitler."
-Edgar Derby
Sc$$w the court....
In this case I don't give a tinkers damn. I still have the power of speech and if I choose to say the Pledge WITH "under GOD" I will!
Sc$$w the court....
Choosing to do so is no problem. Being made to do so by your teacher, that's a problem.
Iraqi: "Is it true that only 13% of American kids can find Iraq on a map?"
American reporter: "Yes, but all 13% are Marines"
"I think life should be more like TV. All of life's problems ought to be solved within 30 minutes with simple homilies. All our desires should be instantly gratified. Women should always wear tight clothes, and men should carry powerful handguns. Of course, if life was really like that, what would we watch on TV?"
- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes)
[:(!] msrobsguns
Seems like with each gun purchase he makes, it means more work for me.
Well he went judge shopping and found one that allowed this to go forward.
Just remenber the 9th is the most overturned court in the land. This will be corrected further up the ladder.
"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
Here's your "communist regime"..... (a little joke that I got from one of your fellow countrymen via ICQ-network !!!!)
As long as you have the lawsystem and lawyors enough to make a profit of twisting and turning every loophole - you will have these kinds of "problems".
But there's a good side to it, the rest of the world gets a good laugh when someone barbeques their cat in a Microwave oven and wins a lawsuit and a good portion of money - because the manual didn't state, that "Drying pets is not allowed, nor good for the pet!"
Every time some big scam or something like that, hits the news - people here sometimes wonders - "When are they gonna wake up overthere??".
Don't do anything that I've allready done - That'd be just plain STOOOOOOPID.
Whahahahah. THat's great.
quote:Originally posted by Msrobsguns
Totally ridiculous!!! Now the right of the one child will be put above the other children in 9 states. How constitutional is that?
[:(!] msrobsguns
Seems like with each gun purchase he makes, it means more work for me.
I thought the first Ammendment is intended to protect those with unpopular viewpoints......[B)] Homogeneity is something that takes away from the beauty of this country IMHO.
quote:Originally posted by 357
quote:Originally posted by Msrobsguns
Totally ridiculous!!! Now the right of the one child will be put above the other children in 9 states. How constitutional is that?
[:(!] msrobsguns
Seems like with each gun purchase he makes, it means more work for me.
I thought the first Ammendment is intended to protect those with unpopular viewpoints......[B)] Homogeneity is something that takes away from the beauty of this country IMHO.
Nope. The intention of the first amendment is "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 to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The purpose is certainly not to "protect those with unpopular viewpoints." The first amendment WAS NOT penned so that the FEDERAL government could prohibit the will of the majority, on state and local levels. The first amendment guarantees the right of the people(states, local government, school boards)to decide how those right enumerated will be exercised. In a nutshell, those rights enumerated, and how they will be exercised, is no business of the federal government(see Kentucky resolution-authored by Jefferson).
Read the amendment-it cxlearly states what its purpose is. A bunch of unelected officials in robes tells us it says otherwise-but it says what it says.
MrsRobsgun is absolutely correct-a court nullifying the rights of an entire people because of the wishes of ONE person is clearly unconstitutional.
"The fundamental principle of our constitution enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail."
-George Washington
MrsRobsguns-You are not on the same page as a bunch of unelected folks wearing robes-but you are on the same page as George Washington(and other founders for that matter).
I would like to see someone post anything said by a founder that would suggest the 1st amendment means something other than what it says-specifically, that it gives the feder4al government the power to restrict speech and religion in the name of "protecting those with unpopular viewpoints"-be careful-if you give me some quote out of context, chances are I know where the quote comes from, and "in context" those quotes generally take on the opposite meaning of what the activists are saying.
"..filling a need and helping people-thats self determination and free enterprise backing itself up all the way-thats why we are in Europe stopping Hitler."
-Edgar Derby
Clouder..
"..filling a need and helping people-thats self determination and free enterprise backing itself up all the way-thats why we are in Europe stopping Hitler."
-Edgar Derby
I don't want to state to dictate to me one way or the other and I believe people who think different that I do should expect the same consideration.
Clouder..
I can do that type of teaching in my home, WHERE IT BELONGS.
X-ring.
Iraqi: "Is it true that only 13% of American kids can find Iraq on a map?"
American reporter: "Yes, but all 13% are Marines"
"I think life should be more like TV. All of life's problems ought to be solved within 30 minutes with simple homilies. All our desires should be instantly gratified. Women should always wear tight clothes, and men should carry powerful handguns. Of course, if life was really like that, what would we watch on TV?"
- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes)
So what if it says "under God", thats just part of the original pledge and our countries heritage. Whoever brought this before the supreme court needs to be slapped for wasting the courts time and being such a loser.
The ORIGINAL pledge does NOT have the words "under god". But I agree with you 100%, this should not be brought before the Supreme Court.
Iraqi: "Is it true that only 13% of American kids can find Iraq on a map?"
American reporter: "Yes, but all 13% are Marines"
"I think life should be more like TV. All of life's problems ought to be solved within 30 minutes with simple homilies. All our desires should be instantly gratified. Women should always wear tight clothes, and men should carry powerful handguns. Of course, if life was really like that, what would we watch on TV?"
- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes)
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, not liberty to purchase power."
Benjamin Franklin, 1785
The court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to say the pledge in the classroom. What if students on their own volition decide to say the Pledge (with "under God") in the classroom would they be prevented from doing this? Wouldn't this be in violation of the 1st amendment of freedom of speech? Students should do this and file suit in the courts if prevented from saying in school the Pledge on their own volition. What does everyone think?
No one is trying to keep students from saying the Pledge ON THEIR OWN... It's when the kids are led by the teacher, in a whole-class activity, that it's a problem. That's when it becomes coerced. And none of this would be a problem at all if they said the original (pre-1950s) Pledge.
Iraqi: "Is it true that only 13% of American kids can find Iraq on a map?"
American reporter: "Yes, but all 13% are Marines"
"I think life should be more like TV. All of life's problems ought to be solved within 30 minutes with simple homilies. All our desires should be instantly gratified. Women should always wear tight clothes, and men should carry powerful handguns. Of course, if life was really like that, what would we watch on TV?"
- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes)
What if students on their own volition decide to say the Pledge (with "under God") in the classroom would they be prevented from doing this? Wouldn't this be in violation of the 1st amendment of freedom of speech?
There isnt anything that would prevent the scenario that you mention. The people of those nine states could very easily say "well thanks for your opinion, but I think we will pass." Contrary to what many believe, the guys in robes are not gods, and the people are not going to be struck by a bolt of lightning if they ignore the ruling.
Will the federal government take action to prevent the children from saying "under god"? Definately not. Both houses of congress passed resolutions that condemned the courts ruling. It passed unanimously in the senate, and I think the house had one dissent. Bush is opposed to the ruling, the AG is opposed to the ruling, and most important, besides a few ACLU types, the public is OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to the ruling. So when you get right down to it, if the people do decide to dissent, there will be no recourse. There are no court police that will storm the schools to make sure the will of the gods in robes is enforced.
Is the AG going to send feds in to enforce the ruling? They woulkd be crazy to do that. First, they do not support the ruling. Second-If Ashcroft decided to take a "well I have to enforce the laws even if I do not agree with them(even though the ruling is not a "law"-only congress can make laws)approach, he(actually George Bush) would have to answer to the people at election time. It would be political suicide to send the feds in to enforce this absurd ruling.The people would voice their dissent at election time, and considering how just about EVERYONE is opposed to this ruling, Bush would suffer severe consequences. What are they going to do? Send the military in to arrest a bunch of children and school teachers for saying "under god"? I dont think so.
The ruling itself is a violation of the first amendments free speech clause.
"..filling a need and helping people-thats self determination and free enterprise backing itself up all the way-thats why we are in Europe stopping Hitler."
-Edgar Derby