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
Federal Court Lets Pledge Ban Stand
sundowner
Member Posts: 1,198 ✭✭✭✭✭
from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79923,00.html
Federal Court Lets Pledge Ban Stand
Friday, February 28, 2003
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion when recited in public classrooms, setting up a showdown at the Supreme Court.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the request for a rehearing failed to persuade a majority of judges on the circuit, so the controversial June 2002 ruling by a three-judge panel stands. The court also said it would not accept any other petitions to reconsider.
In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman said the department's only recourse is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ruling on a lawsuit brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 last year that Newdow's daughter should not be subjected to the term "under God" being recited during the saying of the pledge in public classrooms.
The court said that phrase in the pledge was an endorsement of God. The federal Constitution, the court said, forbade public schools or other governmental entities from endorsing religion.
". . . let me forget about today until tomorrow"
Federal Court Lets Pledge Ban Stand
Friday, February 28, 2003
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion when recited in public classrooms, setting up a showdown at the Supreme Court.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the request for a rehearing failed to persuade a majority of judges on the circuit, so the controversial June 2002 ruling by a three-judge panel stands. The court also said it would not accept any other petitions to reconsider.
In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman said the department's only recourse is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ruling on a lawsuit brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 last year that Newdow's daughter should not be subjected to the term "under God" being recited during the saying of the pledge in public classrooms.
The court said that phrase in the pledge was an endorsement of God. The federal Constitution, the court said, forbade public schools or other governmental entities from endorsing religion.
". . . let me forget about today until tomorrow"
Comments
NRA ENdowment, CRPA Life, NRA ILA EVC, Past President NRA Members Council
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem. Semper Fidelis
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)
"Save the Whalers, they need jobs too."
out and watch what happens.
col elect1mike Illinois
volinters RRG
O give me a home where no democrats roam
It doesn't matter what you shoot, just shoot it well...
It's not the Pledge itself that's the problem, just the words "under god", which aren't even in the original Pledge, as they were added in 1954. Take them back out, and problem solved.
Do you care to explain what "the problem" is with saying under God? If we look to the constitution(which is all we should look to when discussing governmental prohibitions placed on the people)there is nothing that would suggest that the government has the authority to prohibit speech, or religion for that matter. So maybe you can explain what "the problem" is. I am curious as to why you view this as a problem.
Personally, the only thing I DO NOT object to about the entire pledge of Allegiance is the "under god" phrase. I wont pledge allegiance to anyone but God, certainly not to a government. The founders must be roling in their graves over the fact that the people are pledging allegiance to the government-We fought a war to get over the concept of the people pledging allegiance to a king-now we substitute a king with the federal government.
"..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
The way we keep track of years started with the death of Christ. 9th Circus Court will rule that is unconstitutional next....
Let's change the laws and quit bickering about them. One man CAN change the status quo.
quote:Originally posted by chunkstyle
It's not the Pledge itself that's the problem, just the words "under god", which aren't even in the original Pledge, as they were added in 1954. Take them back out, and problem solved.
Do you care to explain what "the problem" is with saying under God? If we look to the constitution(which is all we should look to when discussing governmental prohibitions placed on the people)there is nothing that would suggest that the government has the authority to prohibit speech, or religion for that matter. So maybe you can explain what "the problem" is. I am curious as to why you view this as a problem.
It's not an issue of government PROHIBITING speech, this a suit based on government COMPELLING speech. It becomes an even more realistic solution when you understand that the Pledge worked fine for 70 years before they put those 2 words in.
quote:Personally, the only thing I DO NOT object to about the entire pledge of Allegiance is the "under god" phrase. I wont pledge allegiance to anyone but God, certainly not to a government. The founders must be roling in their graves over the fact that the people are pledging allegiance to the government-We fought a war to get over the concept of the people pledging allegiance to a king-now we substitute a king with the federal government.
Personally, that's good, you can object to what you want to object to. And that's kind of the point. But no one says they pledge allegiance to a government. They are pledging to the Flag. The Constitution was written so it could be changed, whenever we want it to be changed, to whatever we wanted to to be changed to. But it's still the Constitution, just as the Flag would still be the Flag. And there's nothing wrong in publicly promising to keep faith to both, or asking fellow citizens to do the same.
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)
It's not an issue of government PROHIBITING speech, this a suit based on government COMPELLING speech. It becomes an even more realistic solution when you understand that the Pledge worked fine for 70 years before they put those 2 words in.
Personally, that's good, you can object to what you want to object to. And that's kind of the point. But no one says they pledge allegiance to a government. They are pledging to the Flag. The Constitution was written so it could be changed, whenever we want it to be changed, to whatever we wanted to to be changed to.
It appears to me, that you view this "under god" business as a first amendment issue. The 1st amendment prohibits CONGRESS(Feds) from prohibiting speech, and compelling speech. As far as I know, there is no FEDERAL law that makes it mandatory to recite the pledge. States are the governments that make laws which deal with reciting the pledge. If the states decide that each school day will be started with the pledge, they are allowed tro do so-and the FEDERAL government is prohibited from denying them that right. The feds are not "compelling" anyone to recite the pledge, and when the FEDS prohibit a state from exercising their right to free speech and/or religion, they are in direct violation of the constitution and first amendment. "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.." When the Federal government tells the states that they are not allowed to say "under god" they are "abridging the freedom of speech".
.. the pledge does in fact say "allegiance to a government" read "AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS"
.And you are wrong in your assessment that the constitution can be changed, "whenever we want it to be changed". There are very difficult hurdles for the government to clear in order to "change" the constitution. They cant just change it whenever they feel like it.
On a side note, it is interesting to note that the pledge of Allegiance was written by a SOCIALIST. I cant remember his name, but if you do a search on the pledge, you will see that the author was in fact a Socialist(I think his name was Bellamy). Which makes sense. The pledge certainly sounds more in line with Marxist/socialist principles than it does with constitutional principles.
"..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
"De Oppresso Liber"
quite a few things but I dont go out of my way to make a issue of it.
On a vote, I wonder how many people would be against it. Like Ernie
Pyle (famous WW 2 war correspondent) once wrote, "there are no Aethiests in a foxhole". At least, damn few I saw. Most of us
thanked God when once again safe for the time being. What a simple
thing to complain about. Some must have little to do but make
problems for the majority of us.
Of course, after that, nothing else.
It's not what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so!
Resident Pyrrhonist
It appears to me, that you view this "under god" business as a first amendment issue. The 1st amendment prohibits CONGRESS(Feds) from prohibiting speech, and compelling speech. As far as I know, there is no FEDERAL law that makes it mandatory to recite the pledge. States are the governments that make laws which deal with reciting the pledge. If the states decide that each school day will be started with the pledge, they are allowed tro do so-and the FEDERAL government is prohibited from denying them that right. The feds are not "compelling" anyone to recite the pledge, and when the FEDS prohibit a state from exercising their right to free speech and/or religion, they are in direct violation of the constitution and first amendment. "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.." When the Federal government tells the states that they are not allowed to say "under god" they are "abridging the freedom of speech".
The basis of this suit is not that anyone is being prohibited from saying "under god", it's that someone is being required to say it.
quote:.. the pledge does in fact say "allegiance to a government" read "AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS"
Which is defined by the Constitution. The Pledge doesn't require you to affirm any particular Administration.
quote:.And you are wrong in your assessment that the constitution can be changed, "whenever we want it to be changed". There are very difficult hurdles for the government to clear in order to "change" the constitution. They cant just change it whenever they feel like it.
I didn't say it was easy.
quote:On a side note, it is interesting to note that the pledge of Allegiance was written by a SOCIALIST. I cant remember his name, but if you do a search on the pledge, you will see that the author was in fact a Socialist(I think his name was Bellamy). Which makes sense. The pledge certainly sounds more in line with Marxist/socialist principles than it does with constitutional principles.
That would be the "liberty and justice for all" part.
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)
www.ifx.net/~wjohnson/pledge.htm
"..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
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, not liberty to purchase power."
Benjamin Franklin, 1785
The Constitution under the first amendment gurantees freedom of religion and free speech but show me in the Constitution that atheists have the right to prohibit the practice of religion and the mention of God such as in the Pledge.
No one can show you in the constitution where it says that, because nowhere in the constitution does it say that. The constitution says the exact opposite-that religious expression, and speech are protected from federal interference.
It is not the constitution that prohibits religious expression, it is the courts that prohibit religious expression. "Seperation of church and state(which is what the courts use to allow themselves to stick their noses where they do not belong)" was created by the courts in 1947, in the EVERSON VS BOARD OF EDUCATION decision.
before Everson, you could say GOD just about whenever and wherever you wanted to, without interference from the federal government. In a nutshell, the constitution says you can say GOD whenever and wherever you want, but the courts say you cannot.
Jefferson said it best; "The constitution..is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
One of the greatest books I have read which deals with the courts first amendment activism is "ORIGINAL INTENT, the courts, the constitution, and religion"-by DAVID BARTON
Anyone who is interested in seeing how the courts have turned the intent of the first amendment on its head, might want to read this book
"..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
quote:Originally posted by salzo
It appears to me, that you view this "under god" business as a first amendment issue. The 1st amendment prohibits CONGRESS(Feds) from prohibiting speech, and compelling speech. As far as I know, there is no FEDERAL law that makes it mandatory to recite the pledge. States are the governments that make laws which deal with reciting the pledge. If the states decide that each school day will be started with the pledge, they are allowed tro do so-and the FEDERAL government is prohibited from denying them that right. The feds are not "compelling" anyone to recite the pledge, and when the FEDS prohibit a state from exercising their right to free speech and/or religion, they are in direct violation of the constitution and first amendment. "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.." When the Federal government tells the states that they are not allowed to say "under god" they are "abridging the freedom of speech".
The basis of this suit is not that anyone is being prohibited from saying "under god", it's that someone is being required to say it.
That's exactly right. When I was a youngster, we were required to say the pledge every morning. If we didn't we were punished. Nobody is trying to prohibit anyone from practicing their religion, or exercise their right to free speach. The 9th Circuit (maybe overzealously) has attempted to protect the rights of those who don't wish to have something imposed on them. It will probably be overturned though, and the politicians all have to support the pledge no matter what they truely believe. If they don't they will seem unpatriotic. Sorry if I misspelled anything, I'm so tired. [xx(]
quote:Originally posted by chunkstyle
It's not the Pledge itself that's the problem, just the words "under god", which aren't even in the original Pledge, as they were added in 1954. Take them back out, and problem solved.
Do you care to explain what "the problem" is with saying under God? If we look to the constitution(which is all we should look to when discussing governmental prohibitions placed on the people)there is nothing that would suggest that the government has the authority to prohibit speech, or religion for that matter. So maybe you can explain what "the problem" is. I am curious as to why you view this as a problem.
Personally, the only thing I DO NOT object to about the entire pledge of Allegiance is the "under god" phrase. I wont pledge allegiance to anyone but God, certainly not to a government. The founders must be roling in their graves over the fact that the people are pledging allegiance to the government-We fought a war to get over the concept of the people pledging allegiance to a king-now we substitute a king with the federal government.
"..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
You have a point there......
All those American Flag pins that the politicians wear bring to mind the little gold Nazi Party pins that they used to wear. [}:)]
quote:Originally posted by chunkstyle
quote:Originally posted by salzo
It appears to me, that you view this "under god" business as a first amendment issue. The 1st amendment prohibits CONGRESS(Feds) from prohibiting speech, and compelling speech. As far as I know, there is no FEDERAL law that makes it mandatory to recite the pledge. States are the governments that make laws which deal with reciting the pledge. If the states decide that each school day will be started with the pledge, they are allowed tro do so-and the FEDERAL government is prohibited from denying them that right. The feds are not "compelling" anyone to recite the pledge, and when the FEDS prohibit a state from exercising their right to free speech and/or religion, they are in direct violation of the constitution and first amendment. "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.." When the Federal government tells the states that they are not allowed to say "under god" they are "abridging the freedom of speech".
The basis of this suit is not that anyone is being prohibited from saying "under god", it's that someone is being required to say it.
That's exactly right.
No. That is EXACTLY WRONG. The person who brought the suit, brought it to the court because they did not like the fact that the words "under god" were in a pledge that was recited in his daughters school. The daughter was not forced to recite the pledge-she had the option of remaining silent. The daughter was in no way REQUIRED to recite the words "under god" or any of the pledge for that matter. Nobody was compelled to say anything they did not want to say-and the result of the decision is people are prohibited from saying it, even if they want to.
"..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 was forced unless I wanted to sit in the corner....
As a little kid, you don't question things as much as when you are older heh. [;)]