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

Skip to comments.

Vanity: The Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional - If That Doesn't Convince You What Will?
June 26, 2002 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 06/26/2002 11:48:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 521-529 next last
To: Mo1
We can't get them to even pass Judges now and you think The Midget Dashole is going to push to impeach these Judges??

That is the key battle. Right there. The Great Rushmore Hiker, Daschle, who is senator of a state that voted for Bush, is supporting judges so perverse that people wouldn't leave their kids alone with them.

I read one court battle. A judge allowed a burglar to win a lawsuit. The burglar broke a window and snuck into a house. He got cut pretty badly. The judge apparently believes that we should make windows out of safer material than glass so we don't injure any more burglars because the burglar won the lawsuit. This is the kind of bozo that Daschle is supporting.

141 posted on 06/27/2002 1:58:01 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
It was one Dem-appointed and one Rep-appointed. Heck, a Republican-appointed judge wrote the darned thing. Twisting this into a pro-Republican election issue is pure demagoguery.

A judge appointed in 1971 when the Senate was 54 demorats, 44 Republicans, 1 independent, and 1 Conservative.

Your ignorance of the inner machinations of how Judicial process works is showing. Also since this Judge has been livng for 30 years in San Francisco where the atmosphere is all liberal all the time probably has something to do with it, IMHO.

142 posted on 06/27/2002 1:59:42 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: summer
If you and I are at a Fourth of July celebration, and the crowd recites the Pledge, I cannot see how anybody's First Amendment rights have been abrogated.

Requiring children in a public school to recite the Pledge, as modified in 1954, does.

143 posted on 06/27/2002 2:01:42 AM PDT by UncleJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The answer is not found in a Party. It is found in the moral state of the elected, and that is reflected in the moral state of the voter.

Our problem is spiritual, not political. The answer is found in all of us returning to a Bible Based Christianity.

We have reached a time in our country that we have never been in probably, one where the immoral outnumber the moral. We would have leaders that honored God if the people honored God. Something as simple as the repitition of a phrase like the PLEDGE OF ALLIEGENCE becoming illegal in our nation, that is only a symptom of the greater problem, and that problem is that we as a nation are not the Christians we fool ourselves into thinking we are.

That is our true reality, that is what we must wake up to. Our fate is in God's hands. That is where we need to turn.

144 posted on 06/27/2002 2:03:25 AM PDT by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
We should not need to appeal. It shouldn't have gone this far. We need to clean up the court system. And this helps expose what Daschle is really standing for by blocking Bush's appointments. Simply giving ground on this is saving face for Daschle.
145 posted on 06/27/2002 2:04:37 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
Requiring children in a public school to recite the Pledge, as modified in 1954, does.

I don't think so. As I explained in a previous post, and, as I posted in the Education Week article above -- no student in FL is required to recite it (but the student must stand); in addition, the US SUpreme COurt already said no student can be required to cite it. I think one person quoted in that Education Week article had it right: it is being mandated for the schools, but the high court already ruled it can not be mandated to each student. But, yes, it IS legal to have every public school devote time to reciting the pledge. No one's right are violated. And, if you think your rights are violated, you are free to go to a private school where the pledge is not recited.
146 posted on 06/27/2002 2:04:57 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

Comment #147 Removed by Moderator

To: Wondervixen
heheh...you tin-foiler you.
148 posted on 06/27/2002 2:08:18 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Yes, it is a symtom, but it's a symtom that is a wake-up call to the patient. If you don't fix this one, you're gonna die.
149 posted on 06/27/2002 2:09:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
(1) Look at Tom Jeff's actions. He preached a nominal Christian faith, in an official capacity. The encroachment he disagreed with was that of one flavor of Christianity upon another; to him it was beyond question that a general Christianity should continue to be preached. (2) The letter was a promise not to interfere in the Baptists' exercise of faith, not a barrier to forbid Baptists to exercise a general Christian influence in official affairs. (3) Thomas Jefferson was not exactly an expert on the context of the First Amendment in the first place; he was off in France when it was codified.

In other words you do not have a smoking gun here. Modern eyes construe the excerpt, especially out of context, quite differently from the way that Thomas Jefferson himself did.

150 posted on 06/27/2002 2:12:17 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Race, it isn't either/or. It is both/and.
151 posted on 06/27/2002 2:13:54 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
Jefferson's Danbury letter. Of course. No disrespect meant but I am curious. Do you know what that was all about? I see liberals drag that out as if they are a cat with a mouse. It has no bearing on law and doesn't advocate religion being removed from government.

I sincerely do not know if it is used by those who don't know or those who want to deceive.

Jefferson signed into law a bill giving land to missionaries. He rode in his carriage up to the Hill for full Sunday services in the House of Representatives. He wanted religion to flourish. He never wanted religion out of the public square. That is what the first amendment was all about. It was an antitrust act of sorts. No Federal religion could be established. That way hundreds of different faiths could flourish.

I simply do not understand your side. There is no basis for what you contend. Zero. None. Nada.

And for over 150 years there was no separation of church and state. Religious oaths for public office weren't knocked down by SCOTUS until the 1960s.

All I can figure is some have such a deep hostility to Christianity, that they are willing to prostitute their intellect to pretend history is not history and the constitution does not say what it clearly says.

Those people should be aware that this has little to do with religion. It has everything to do with liberty.

I don't care if Muslims want to pray in school (well I do care but not in a legal sense). They have that right. So do Sikhs, Jews and anyone else.

Be aware, your twisting of the constitution, you reliance on fiat judicial ruling can come back to bite. It always does. Trust the people to do what is right. Trust in liberty. Do not trust unelected judges. Do not applaud a judicial ruling censoring the speech of others because you don't like what they say. You could be next.

152 posted on 06/27/2002 2:16:52 AM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I fail to see how removing the two words added in 1954 threatens our Republic.
153 posted on 06/27/2002 2:17:03 AM PDT by UncleJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Please take heart. Solomon once said [in Proverbs], Pride comes before a fall.

Solomon was referring to arrogant pride. This is clearly it. The liberal courts messed up. I forsee the very outrage you are hoping for.

Perhaps the courts should take 'God' out of the Constitution? Any reference from God could be removed? Wouldn't that be an interesting idea. And it makes about as much sense.

154 posted on 06/27/2002 2:19:13 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
I fail to see how removing the two words added in 1954 threatens our Republic

It takes away our freedom of speech and religion. That is how. And next month they will chip away a little more, then a little more. Liberals never stop. We have 100 years of history to prove that. The goal of liberals is a society where all which is not prohibited is mandatory.

155 posted on 06/27/2002 2:20:14 AM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The frog has been in the water on the stove to long.

We need a new frog.

When Jo-Lo and Britany get upset over this, something may happen until then, the waters just getting hotter.

BTW, I'll still heed you call to action.

Better to light a candle then curse the darkness.

156 posted on 06/27/2002 2:20:18 AM PDT by JZoback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The rest of us can send our children to private schools or if we can't afford to do that, to home school them.

Private and parochial schools can also be liberal (as I know from personal experience). Conservative schools can be found, but don't automatically make the mistake and asssume they're conservative (as I did). Instead of having them interview you to assess YOUR suitability, you should interview the school to assess THEIR suitability. Find out if they share your conservative values.

157 posted on 06/27/2002 2:20:43 AM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
We got terrorists trying to kill us and all these punks in Congress can do with there time is make an issue out of this? I'm surprised they didn't go back in and vote themselves a big fat pay hike

I don't need pandering punk politicians to tell me what America is "under". Now or in 1954.

158 posted on 06/27/2002 2:23:35 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
It doesn't. Sleazbag politicians are much more of a threat.
159 posted on 06/27/2002 2:24:56 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
What threatens our Republic is not what was done but the way it was done... by a vastly overreaching judicial fiat that says it doesn't care what We The People want, but by godless even this glancing mention of God is intolerable.

This is one reason why I support Robert Bork's proposal to amend the constitution such that Congress -- the most direct representatives of the people -- may, by a supermajority vote of both houses, nullify any court ruling.

160 posted on 06/27/2002 2:25:01 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 521-529 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