How is the "under God" unconstitutional?

6/27/02 | myself

[Jeff Head]

The pledge is an exercise of my right to free speech and my right to freely exercise my religious beliefs ... both enumerated and vouchsafed in the COnstitution much more clearly that this blatant attempt at judicial activism.

"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, 1798 Address

SET ASIDE THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT RULING

IMPEACH THE RASCALS! ROUTE THE VIPERS OUT!

FR Thread HERE

[SteamshipTime]

Correct. The First Amendment was only meant to apply to the federal Congress. "Establish" meant designating a certain Christian demonination as the "official" religion, as several states did in those days.

The Fourteenth Amendment did more harm than good and was the first step from republicanism toward socialist democracy.

Having said all that, I've never been too enamored of the Pledge of Allegiance and would probably decline to say it myself. In the USMCR, and later as a member of the Bar, I pledged an oath to protect and defend the federal and Georgia Constitutions.

[traditionalist]

Yes of course, what a horrid oversight on my part. Thank you for the correction.

[eFudd]

It is simply community practice which is a power retained by the People and outside the Courts jurisdiction. And EFudd you Refute yourself since the 10 Amendment supports the above.

The pledge is no more a federal issue than is abortion. No reason this issue should be in any federal court . . . precisely because of the 10th ammendment.

I am not quite sure what to make out of your statement that I am refuting myself. You seem to agree with me, so maybe I am refuting you too.

[SteamshipTime]

There is some good, dispassionate analysis on this thread.

[FreeTally]

Having said all that, I've never been too enamored of the Pledge of Allegiance and would probably decline to say it myself. In the USMCR, and later as a member of the Bar, I pledged an oath to protect and defend the federal and Georgia Constitutions.

Good point. Why pledge allegiance to an entity that violates the documents that created it in the first place.

[FreeTally]

I am not quite sure what to make out of your statement that I am refuting myself. You seem to agree with me, so maybe I am refuting you too.

I think your #4 lead many on this thread to believe that you were in disagreement with us, when upon further clarification, apparently you are not.

[Nancee]

Hi "SteamshipTime"!

There is also a "poll" on CourtTV, on this subject, to be FREEPED!!

Thanks!

Nancee

[rwfromkansas]

Here is my collection of ideas of what we should do and say in response to the ruling based on what I have seen on FR.

First, we need to contact the White House. This is what the press secretary said yesterday:

"MR. FLEISCHER: The President was informed at the G-8 Summit about the San Francisco court decision pertaining to the flag. The
President's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous.

The Supreme Court, itself, begins each of its sessions with the phrase, "God save the United States and this honorable court." The
Declaration of Independence refers to God or to the Creator four different times. Congress begins each session of the Congress each day
with a prayer. And of course, our currency says, "In God We Trust."

The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision, and THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS NOW EVALUATING HOW
TO SEEK REDRESS."

This is good....but let's keep the pressure on to show Bush he can do a lot even in this situation from the judicial branch.

Here is the switchboard for the WH: 202-456-1414
Here is the comment line: 202-456-1111
Here is the fax number: 202-456-2461

In contacting the White House, I think we should say the following:

1. The President should address the nation and demand his judicial nominees get voted on, since this ruling would not have happened if
his nominees would have been put on the bench instead of having a judge come out of retirement to fill the vacancy.
2. The President should call a joint session of Congress, calling for a Constitutional Amendment. No, we don't need one, but the judges
aren't able to understand plain language, so let's make it plain. Bush should demand an amendment that will protect the right of God to be
in the public schools and that will also restrict the authority of judges in making rulings. They should be required to cite precedent clear
back to the founding period on issues that go back as far.
3. The President should publicly call for the impeachment of the two judges in this case.
4. The president should publicly call for a radical changing of the 9th circuit or a defunding altogether.
(Both numbers 3 and 4 could be dealt with heavy-handedly in a joint session of Congress as well).
5. The President should use this to push for school vouchers. He has been vindicated by the SCOTUS ruling today on the matter and should push it to the fullest extent possible.
6. The President should encourage the use of the Pledge by using it more often in public appearances.




As for Congress, we should call for impeachment of the judges in the House. In the Senate, we should call for VOTES ON BUSH'S
NOMINEES!

U.S. Capitol numbers (thanks to Mo1):

HERE'S THE TOLL FREE NUMBER FOR THE CAPITOL: 1-800-648-3516

US Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121




We could freep the judge that wrote the opinion (thanks WakeUpChristian). Call Federal Judge Alfred Goodwin and demand
that he immediately resign... (415) 556-9800



Also, an idea of mine:

Are there Freepers from California that are teachers?

I seriously think we should consider encouraging them to violate this ruling when school starts up if they want to. Do we have any
money left over from the legal defense fund? We could even support them with that if they have to go to court.




Idea for FReeper Activism (thanks to Spiff for this idea):
Independence Day is coming. In my area, and I'm sure in many other areas, the fireworks display includes some sort of pre-fireworks
programs. In my town, we have the 36th Army Band play a brief concert, have a few fireworks and cannons go off during the 'Overture of
1812' and then we have someone sing the National Anthem right before the fireworks begin.

The program has never included a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance before. In light of the disgusting, anti-American decision by the
9th and in my patriotic desire to resist tyranny, I called the director of the fireworks display and suggested he add the Pledge to the
program. He loved the idea and the reason behind it! So, in my town thousands of people are going to celebrate their independence on
Independence Day by asserting it and reciting the Pledge on city property at a city-sponsored event. You can rest assured that we will
emphasize the "under God" portion of the Pledge.

Independence day is fast approaching. Many FReepers plan on attending various 4th of July events to include fireworks displays, etc. Get
on the phone now and do as I did and get the full Pledge of Allegiance to be recited at the events in your area.



There are also several petitions linked on FR. I think it would be good to support them. However, I also think that the one being given to the Supreme Court is being sent to the wrong people....we should send this stuff to Congress to get THEIR action.

[mil-vet]

Your post #15 says it all - "separation of church and state" is BS - it leads to oral sex in the oval office and not much else - it CERTAINLY isn't anywhere in the constitution!!!!

As you "quote" - "Congress shall not establish an official religion." - This has somehow been perverted (apt word when talking about the activities of liberals) into the "separation" lie.

OK, so I'm a gov't employee, and have been since early 1966, if you include my 21 years of active duty military time, AND I am a Christian. I guess, by the moronic logic of the alternate lifestyle garbage of the 9th whatevertheheck, I must be unconstitutional - BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The sad thing about this whole mess is that it is a natural outgrowth of the abject stupidity of political correctness. Under the tenants of political correctness, I must not only allow you to have an opinion or conviction different from mine, I've got to agree with you, affirm yours, and deny my own - that is, for me to allow you your opinion, copnviction, or whatever, I have to give mine up - you don't have to allow me MY opinions, convictions, et.al.!! How d*mn dumb is THAT! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

No wonder the former US attorney general said that those who home-school their kids are a threat to the gov't! NO HOME-SCHOOLED judge would have ever made such a stupid ruling!!

[SteamshipTime]

God knows, it's hardly something I'd bring a lawsuit over!

Neal Boortz pointed out that this plaintiff frankly admits that his daughter's views, whatever they are, do not count. He's pursuing his own agenda, regardless of the humiliation her peers will subject her to. I'll bet, with a child's simplicity and intensity, she wishes her father were dead right now.

Liberals are EVIL.

[Nancee]

Hi again, "rwfromkansas"!!

I apologize, but I have not learned how to do the "link thing"; so I am requesting that someone please assist me, and institute a "link" from the "FreeRepublic" to the "poll" on CourtTV.

Thanks so much!

nancee

[glennaro]

You're right, Nancee. That CourtTV poll needs serious attention. Vote at:
http://www.courttv.com/ctvapp/ thirteenth2.cfm

[Charles_Bingley]

This is how the Court decided: "In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism...The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (Sandra O’Connor, J., concurring)."

"In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words “under God” to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD’s policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause. The judgment of dismissal is vacated with respect to these two claims, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs on this appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED."

NEWDOW v. U.S. Congress, No. 00-16423, 2002 U.S. App. FINDLAW.COM (9th Cir. June 26, 2002).

[lavaroise]

Atheists and this court are not under god, but claim to be above god or equal hence!!!

Atheists are defining their gods. The under God principle is not, atheists' is an above God principle. What makes them so sinless???

[Dimensio]

I have a somewhat less paranoid view of the "opposition". Mind you, this is only a description of a subset, not everyone who has a problem with the "under god" wording.

The believe that by having a national "pledge" with a reference to a deity in it that the government is implying that said deity exists. They would rather that the government remain silent on such matters rather than endorse one god or a position regarding the existence of gods -- in other words, they would also object to a government pledge that implied something to the effect that no gods at all exist.

Hope that helps.

[Ravenstar]

I am stating that the Court had no jurisdiction to make the ruling they did because it is about Community Practice and not a law passed by any legislature! BTW following your logic we can have no national anthem either.

Ravenstar

[Dimensio]

Atheists and this court are not under god, but claim to be above god or equal hence!!!

Atheists lack belief in gods. An atheist could comment on their opinion of a particular god construct, but it would always be hypothetical because the atheist would not actually hold belief that said god exists.

"Sin" is actually a concept of religion, thus they lack belief in sin in general because of not believing that there are any gods against which a "sin" could be committed.

[Ravenstar]

I disagree with 2 and 4 but the rest I believe is very doable with problable 95% support.

Ravenstar

[Charles_Bingley]

traditionalist wrote: "The Federal government does not mandate that public school students recite it. Public schools are still, mostly, under state jurisdiction, and the saying of the pledge of allegence is a state and local policy. Hence under the 10th Amendment, it is perfectly constitutional."

The Bill of Rights which prohibits the Federal government from violating our Rights was expanded to include the States so that they can't violate our Rights also.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an estab lishment of religion,” U.S. Const. amend. I, a provision that “the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable with full force to the States and their school districts.” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 580 (1992). NEWDOW v. U.S. Congress, No. 00-16423, 2002 U.S. App. FINDLAW.COM (9th Cir. June 26, 2002).

The question before the fore is, do we want to spend political capital on this issue?