Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal judge rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in CA!
Fox News ^

Posted on 09/14/2005 11:51:27 AM PDT by Rightwingmom

SAN FRANCISCO — Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (search) in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; aleftistwhomustgo; americanflag; antiamerican; antitheist; churchandstate; communist; constitution; flag; government; islamofascist; judgesrobe; lawsuit; letthemknow; nearyourhometown; newdow; ninthcircuit; pledge; pledgeofallegiance; professorsgown; purge; ruling; schools; thestockpilesong; undergod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-134 next last

1 posted on 09/14/2005 11:51:51 AM PDT by Rightwingmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom
Didn't we just go through this?

Here in Idaho, which is in the 9th circuit, at football games and in schools, after the last 9th district ruling, people were doing so anyway, emphasizing very loudly the "under God" part, daring the courts to do anything about it.

This isn't to the circuit courts level yet...but it will get there and then have to go to the Supreme Court to get smacked down again.

2 posted on 09/14/2005 11:52:21 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom
WHAT???

That's awful!!!

3 posted on 09/14/2005 11:53:16 AM PDT by NordP (Must See TV - Mark Levin's Supreme Court Nomination Hearings ----- I WISH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

We went through this last year and the supreme court overturned it. Not sure of the details on this yet but the left sure never stops.


4 posted on 09/14/2005 11:53:18 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

I thought that once you lost at the Supreme Court you were done. What happened?


5 posted on 09/14/2005 11:53:33 AM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

And now, we ALL start paying attention to the confirmation hearings!


6 posted on 09/14/2005 11:53:50 AM PDT by jsk10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

It's already in Breaking News...


7 posted on 09/14/2005 11:53:57 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

Here we go again.


8 posted on 09/14/2005 11:54:02 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

It has always been respected for people like Jehovah's Witnesses that refused to PLEDGE Allegiance, we allowed silence during this important event. So WHY the big deal, if the parents don't want their kids to pledge allegiance...just cough...when others say UNDER GOD. Why make a big fuss?


9 posted on 09/14/2005 11:54:33 AM PDT by rovenstinez (..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

I think Congress should impeach at least one judge every year. Let's get some turnover.


10 posted on 09/14/2005 11:55:45 AM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

Waiting for one to rule that The Constitution is unconstitutional.


11 posted on 09/14/2005 11:56:24 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

Yeah Kalifornia...ye reaps what ye sows!


12 posted on 09/14/2005 11:56:28 AM PDT by harpu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Sorry, I see other's already posted the news.


13 posted on 09/14/2005 11:57:05 AM PDT by Rightwingmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

The judge was a Carter appointee - what a shock, huh? He's been out of office for 25 years, and the damage that Jimmy C. did to the US just keeps going on and on....


14 posted on 09/14/2005 11:57:11 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom
Again? geez, doesn't this guy have anything to do in his life? The judge should have told him to tell the people either don't say "under GOD" of don't say the pledge at all. If judges like this guy think they can tell us NOT to say the pledge, they will have to have us all arrested! another judge with delusions of grandeur...
15 posted on 09/14/2005 11:59:45 AM PDT by Edgerunner (Proud to be an infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

Perhaps the parents of the rest of the children who are now having their freedom of expression oppressed should start filing suit.


16 posted on 09/14/2005 12:02:03 PM PDT by kas2591 (Life's harder when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom
Is it really new that this was in California? What bonehead court other than the ninth would declare such a thing?
17 posted on 09/14/2005 12:04:00 PM PDT by msnimje (CNN - Constant Negative Nonsense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom


Send him to China to complete his term.


18 posted on 09/14/2005 12:04:37 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys-Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The decision was not overturned by SCOTUS it was thrown back into the system. They basically said that the atheist father was not able to bring the case on behalf of his daughter and to go get more plaintiffs.

Basically, SCOTUS side-stepped the issue.

The fact-of-the-matter remains that when a public school REQUIRES the recital of the Pledge of Allegience it IS unconstitional due to the fact that the school is a part of the government and paid for by the people.


19 posted on 09/14/2005 12:05:02 PM PDT by TheSane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

Because its considered INTOLERANT for the rest of us to not do what the minority insist on.


20 posted on 09/14/2005 12:05:41 PM PDT by azemt (9 people in black robes are NOT the ultimate source of wisdom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: azemt

You don't have to recite it. You can recite it even if it's not required. But when it's required it becomes a constitutional problem.

Same with prayer in school. Would you want your kid going to a public school that mandated a daily prayer to Allah? No, and it would be unconstitutional for them to do so.


21 posted on 09/14/2005 12:08:00 PM PDT by TheSane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: Sunshine Sister

The Supreme Court dismissed the case based on lack of standing. They did not decide the case on the merits.


23 posted on 09/14/2005 12:11:26 PM PDT by Uncle Joe Cannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

Let's not be too harsh on the Carter appointee. The existing 9th Circuit decision in the previous Newdow case did tie his hands in this case.


24 posted on 09/14/2005 12:12:16 PM PDT by Steve_Stifler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Joe Cannon

That makes sense. I had forgotten that they dismissed it.


25 posted on 09/14/2005 12:15:32 PM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

One???? Shizzle, let's turn over HALF of them every year.


26 posted on 09/14/2005 12:18:20 PM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

Exxxxxcellent!
27 posted on 09/14/2005 12:19:29 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheSane
It's not "required" to cite it now. These people want to make it illegal for anyone to recite it.

I have no problem with the school holding the recital each day...those who do not want to can stand there and remain quiet, or be allowed to stand outside the room if they wish, while those who do want to recite it proceed..

28 posted on 09/14/2005 12:20:53 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: thompsonsjkc; odoso; animoveritas; mercygrace; Laissez-faire capitalist; bellevuesbest; ...

Moral Absolutes Ping.

I thought that the SCOTUS had taken care of it; apparently not. So it will get bumped up to the top again. What the SCOTUS says will no doubt in part be determined by what kind of judge Roberts is (if he's appointed, which I assume he will be), and whoever is the unknown.

Conservatives need to think more about atheists* - what drives them, what their goals are, the methods and tactics they use, what is their game plan.

I never read any of their stuff, I suppose they have websites and books and meetings and foundations and who knows what else. But obviously they have a plan to eradicate every single teeny tiny reference to God in every single sphere of life that can be remotely considered public.

Does anyone really think that that's what the First Amendment means?

Here it is for reference:

"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 of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition to Government for a redress of grievances."

Do you see Congress establishing a state religion by schoolchildren reciting the pledge of allegiance because the name of God is mentioned?

I don't.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

Note: Keep in mind that appeasement has never, not once, stopped an evildoer from doing more evil. It only encourages them to prey upon weakness even more.

*I'm referring to the activist ones. There are harmless ones (relatively speaking) who actually appreciate the residual moral values originating in religious tradition, or are neutral and appreciate that believers in God have rights too. But the activist, radical avowed atheists are the really dangerous ones.


29 posted on 09/14/2005 12:22:09 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheSane

Is our money unconstitutional as well?


30 posted on 09/14/2005 12:24:08 PM PDT by CSM ( It's all Bush's fault! He should have known Mayor Gumbo was a retard! - Travis McGee (9/2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: raptor29
So...you are proposing murdering them?

Nope...we are not in a state of war, and despite the lateness of the hour and the breadth and depth of the assault, we still have legal, civil recourse.

Until that is totally exhausted, as it was with our founders, then we are obligated to civilly, tierlessly...even loudly if necessary...and perhaps with civil disobedience (as we will do here in Idaho) fight this and get it turned over.

If they come with guns drawn to stop citizens doing so at a football game or at school, things may get interesting. But that will not happen here in Idaho on this issue IMHO.

31 posted on 09/14/2005 12:24:41 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheSane
The fact-of-the-matter remains that when a public school REQUIRES the recital of the Pledge of Allegience it IS unconstitional due to the fact that the school is a part of the government and paid for by the people

That is untrue. The idea that the First Amendment prohibits states from compelling the Pledge of Allegiance or even from establishing their own official state religions is probably the most easily proved lie of the many the Supreme Court has issued through the years.

The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth...commands that a state 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
--Justice Hugo Black, Everson v. Bd of Education of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

This declaration by the Supreme Court was the first time it informed everyone that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment was applicable to the states. Before that time, state-religion issues were not the province of the US Constitution or the federal courts. But was the Supreme Court right? Did the 14th Amendment make the Establishment Clause applicable to the states?

Go back to 1875 (7 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified)...President Grant asks Congressman James Blaine to introduce a proposed amendment that will provide in part:

No state shall make any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The Blaine Amendment (which would have been the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution passes the House but fails in the Senate. Senator Frelinghuysen of NJ, in introducing the amendment in the Senate states:

The [Blaine Amendment] very properly extends the prohibition of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States. Thus the [Blaine Amendment] prohibits the States, for the first time, from the establishment of religion, from prohibiting its free exercise, and from making any religious test a qualification to office.

Senator Eaton of Connecticut, in objecting to the Blaine Amendment states, on the Senate floor:

I am opposed to any State prohibiting the free exercise of any religion; and I do not require the Senate or the Congress of the United States to assist me in taking care of the State of Connecticut in that regard.

Senator Whyte agreed:

The first amendment to the Constitution prevents the establishment of religion by congressional enactment; it prohibits the interference of Congress with the free exercise thereof, and leaves the whole power for the propagation of it with the States exclusively; and so far as I am concerned I propose to leave it there also.

The Congressional record during the debates over the Blaine Amendment shows that not one member of Congress...many of whom were in the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment or the state legislatures that ratified it...not a single one...mentioned that the Blaine Amendment was unnecessary...it seems that none of the Congressmen who ratified the 14th Amendment knew that they thereby incorporated the Establishment Clause against the states...the Everson case must be another fine example of Constitutional fiction...I mean..."interpretation"

32 posted on 09/14/2005 12:27:26 PM PDT by Irontank (Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

Can't we pass an amendment to declare Newdow, himself, unconstitutional?


33 posted on 09/14/2005 12:27:31 PM PDT by coffeecup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

You're right. It's not required. Although any public school teacher that says "Let's all stand for the Pledge" and leads the class in the recital (espceially to the very young who don't know the difference) constitutes the same problem.

Personally, I don't care what the outcome of all this is. It does not affect me at all. I'm just interested in the game. It's fun to watch.


34 posted on 09/14/2005 12:29:09 PM PDT by TheSane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Perhaps there is an even easier answer.

As we have seen with illegal aliens and the zero enforcement of our immigration laws, these are laws which nobody is expected to obey.

Consequently, any law resulting from this particular decision will merely be one more law which we can choose to ignore.

Resume reciting our normal "under God" pledge.

35 posted on 09/14/2005 12:30:21 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

You're right. It's not required. Although any public school teacher that says "Let's all stand for the Pledge" and leads the class in the recital (espceially to the very young who don't know the difference) constitutes the same problem.

Personally, I don't care what the outcome of all this is. It does not affect me at all. I'm just interested in the game. It's fun to watch.


36 posted on 09/14/2005 12:31:13 PM PDT by TheSane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TheSane
I do care. It is a reminder and opportunity to the youth of our nation of the importance of their civic duty.

I have no problem with children of all ages being exposed to it. If the very youg children's parents do not approve, they can certainly request their children to not be a part. As they get older, they can choose for themselves to opt out.

In the mean time, a good percentage will take it seriously, as, IMHO, they should.

37 posted on 09/14/2005 12:33:16 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Czar

We did that last time here in Idaho...I expect we shall do so again.


38 posted on 09/14/2005 12:34:06 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

If Civic Duty is your concern, why not take the "Under God" out and restore the Pledge to the pre-1954 non-Knights of Columbus version? That one was all about Allegiance to the country and nothing to do with religion at all.


39 posted on 09/14/2005 12:35:38 PM PDT by TheSane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom; All

ARGH! WTF!!!!!!

"Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' children attend."

Now what about all the hundreds of children and parents who have no issue with the pledge? Why can't they (the students) continue to say the pledge? They aren't forcing the children of these moronic parents to say it. Karlton, Newdow and these parents need to have their heads examined.


40 posted on 09/14/2005 12:38:51 PM PDT by EHC Southern Pride (Where ever you go, go with all your heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom
This is a comment on the subject and is not directed to you rightwingman.

I can not believe just how ignorant some posters on this thread are.

The Consitution of the United States was designed to limit the power of the Federal Government.

It was never designed to limit individuals, local or States (excpect in those rare occassions an issue crossed state lines).

The Consitution prohibits the Federal Government from establishing an official church (such as the Church of England).

You only need to read the founding fathers papers and observed how they acted in public to see that they at no time wished religion be removed from the public square.

And yet here we are after 50 years of attack by the ACLU we are debating if the words "under God", make the pledge of Allegince unconstitutional. BS.

We never should have gotten to this point, the battle is almost lost when you have otherwise sane (and I presume conservative) posters agreeing with this decision.

I guess if this is upheld by the Supremes we deserve the country we get.

41 posted on 09/14/2005 12:41:19 PM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EHC Southern Pride

I would think banning the pledge from being said at all would be unconstitutional, much as it should be allowed for individuals to pray in school.

Banning the school from leading the pledge however should not stop the students from reciting it on their own accrod.

I would think.


42 posted on 09/14/2005 12:42:14 PM PDT by TheSane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom
Another example of bipolar judges making crazy decisions. These judges are a bigger danger to this country than Iraq.
43 posted on 09/14/2005 12:46:44 PM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
It was never designed to limit individuals, local or States (excpect in those rare occassions an issue crossed state lines).

The BoR does apply to the States as noted in the various Amendments. "Supreme Law of the Land". Just because someone steps onto your property does not make them your slaves. Ect... The basic human Rights protections thus enshrined extend to all US citizens.

However, 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law" which explicitly limits Federal action. The operative clauses are freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Pledging allegiance via somoene elses God isn't an abridgement of this freedom as you can insert your own deities name, or drop the clause from that pledge altogether, however you want to. There is no legal requirement to say "under God" per se. As such, this is not an "establishment" of religion.

California's 9th circuit needs an ass whoopin'. Religion should be inclusive in the "public square", not excluding all religion from public life.

44 posted on 09/14/2005 12:51:27 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be. -El Neil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
"We did that last time here in Idaho...I expect we shall do so again."

Unfortunately, this is the difference. Idaho would never put up with this. Here in California, the left wing crazies that populate and run our public school system will exert every effort to impose a no-exceptions, rigid police state enforcement of this latest bit of insanity issued by our looney-tunes and nearly hopeless courts. They will go to any lengths to enforce this, aided and abetted by the ACLU and all of the usual suspects. All with the enthusiastic approval of the crapweasels in Sacramento.

45 posted on 09/14/2005 1:04:33 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Wasn't it ruled that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states? Given that, you have state run schools requiring the pledge, which is probably a reason for the ruling.

I'm willing to bet that even if they removed "under God," the radical Leftists would object to students being required to pledge their allegiance to the republic.


46 posted on 09/14/2005 1:13:46 PM PDT by thompsonsjkc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom

Sickening.


47 posted on 09/14/2005 1:14:14 PM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheSane
I had hoped you would ask.

The answer is that because they recognized in the 50s (perhpas relearned or rediscovered is a better term) that this nation was founded on those principles and has everything to do with, from its founding, the idea that there is a God in Heaven, regardless of persuasion, that watches over the affairs of man, and who endows upon mankind their unalienable rights.

Without that knowledge, it is impossible to understand the basic founding principles of this Republic and the resulting civic responsibility. John Adams said it best:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 179

48 posted on 09/14/2005 1:14:47 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TheSane

That Adams quote was 1798.


49 posted on 09/14/2005 1:15:09 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Rightwingmom
Former Attorney General of the US Dick Thornburgh just made THE ARGUMENT about this case on Fox.

He stated flatly that this case effectively declares atheism the State Religion.

Tell your friends. Tell your Congressmen and Senators. Tell the White House and tell AG Gonzales.

The battle is joined.

We don't want Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam declared the State Religion, but we also don't want atheism imposed on us. Stop denying us the freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment!

50 posted on 09/14/2005 1:16:37 PM PDT by Phsstpok (There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-134 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson