Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 71

Thread: Unconstitutional to Say Pledge of Allegence

  1. #1
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Unconstitutional to Say Pledge of Allegence

    Um what?
    [url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html[/url]
    I don't know about this. This is a little weird. I mean if an Atheist doesn't believe in God, then what should it matter. What should we say. One nation..under George, and each president say the name? These words should mean nothing to athiests. They should also just abstain from saying the pledge, instead of restricting it from others who want to.

  2. #2
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    37,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Sack Exchange]Um what?
    [url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html[/url]
    I don't know about this. This is a little weird. I mean if an Atheist doesn't believe in God, then what should it matter. What should we say. One nation..under George, and each president say the name? These words should mean nothing to athiests. They should also just abstain from saying the pledge, instead of restricting it from others who want to.[/QUOTE]
    I'm sure the aclu is involved here

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    4,430
    Post Thanks / Like
    Good idea Sack, but it's too much common sense on your part. ;)

    Rather than just allow the non-believers to not say the pledge, the ACLU etc would rather prevent EVERYONE from saying it, so the atheists dont feel excluded.

  4. #4
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jetswin]I'm sure the aclu is involved here[/QUOTE]
    I don't mind the ACLU, it just doesn't seem to me like the right time to really be making this a priority. I just think, whatever your belief that you should really take it upon yourself to cling onto it right now...especially now. And this justs limits that. I would be opposed to say it was unconstitutional to let anyone say what they wanted about any religion that they believe in.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    9,923
    Post Thanks / Like
    awesome, so does this mean we dont have to say the pledge ever again?

  6. #6
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetfan16]awesome, so does this mean we dont have to say the pledge ever again?[/QUOTE]
    apparently. why are you still in grade school. cool if you are...I don't judge...oh wait, yeah I do. :)

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Pledge is neither coercive nor a requirement. G*d-damn liberal p*ssies, whining about everything. What a bunch of whiners....

  8. #8
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]The Pledge is neither coercive nor a requirement. G*d-damn liberal p*ssies, whining about everything. What a bunch of whiners....[/QUOTE]
    hey man. Who is to say that the Judge or the person making the complaint isn't Repub. Not likely, but why whine about the whiners. What is your take on this situation, and how does it affect you, that is what I want to know? I am interested in people's feed back in this. Intelligent feedback.

  9. #9
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    37,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    Senior District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton (LKK)


    Born 1935 in Brooklyn, NY

    Federal Judicial Service:

    U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
    [B]Nominated by Jimmy Carter[/B] on June 5, 1979, to a seat vacated by Thomas J. MacBride; Confirmed by the Senate on July 23, 1979, and received commission on July 24, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1983-1990. Assumed senior status on May 28, 2000.

    ....shocker

  10. #10
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jetswin]Senior District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton (LKK)


    Born 1935 in Brooklyn, NY

    Federal Judicial Service:

    U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
    [B]Nominated by Jimmy Carter[/B] on June 5, 1979, to a seat vacated by Thomas J. MacBride; Confirmed by the Senate on July 23, 1979, and received commission on July 24, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1983-1990. Assumed senior status on May 28, 2000.

    ....shocker[/QUOTE]
    Ha! Good research, now we know and knowing is half the battle. On a personal level though what do you feel about this result, parties aside.

  11. #11
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    37,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Sack Exchange]Ha! Good research, now we know and knowing is half the battle. On a personal level though what do you feel about this result, parties aside.[/QUOTE]
    I think it's ridiculous...in a few short years our Country will not resemble anything it has been in the past. As a matter of fact that transformation is already taking place. What we are being transformed into is the scary unknown, but not what our forefathers envisioned, of that I'm sure.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Another Federal judge from SF.....earlier this week the same court ruled on something almost as absurd- escapes my memory at the moment but will try to dig it up.......

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    ha! found it...partial article:

    [QUOTE]SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge here said environmental groups and four U.S. cities can sue federal development agencies on allegations the overseas projects they financially back contribute to global warming.

    The decision Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White is the first to say that groups alleging global warming have a right to sue.

    "This is the first decision in the country to say that climate change causes sufficient injury to give a plaintiff standing, to open the courthouse door," said Ronald Shems, a Vermont attorney representing Friends of the Earth.

    That group, in addition to Greenpeace and the cities of Boulder, Colo., Santa Monica, Oakland and Arcata, Calif., sued Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Those government agencies provide loans and insure billions of dollars of U.S. investors' money for development projects overseas. Many of the projects are power plants that emit greenhouses gases that the groups allege cause global warming.
    [/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    37,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]ha! found it...partial article:[/QUOTE]
    this guy is a Bush appointee :eek:

    the common link is both of these judges are NY educated

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,743
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hate to remind you folks, but the "Under God" part was most definitely NOT part of the pledges "original intent". In fact, it was right-wing activist which-hunting legislators that twisted the "strict originalist" version of the pledge into the "modern, living" version it is today by adding this "activist" line in the 50's. The reason, as I know most of you already know, was PURELY to fight the great evil (by evil we mean anti-religion) COMMUNIST BLOCK!

    Personally, I don't need YOUR Magical, Mythical, Invisible, Unproveable "God" in the Pledge for OUR Nation, thank you very much. I assume YOU wouldn't like "one Nation, Under the Intelligent Diesgning Alien Hampsters from Space...." much either, now would you. In fact, I bet some of you would favor suing to be rid of the Hampster bit I bet.

    What purpose does having the non-original "under God" line serve today? None, excpet to make religious folkd feel special, which last I checked was NOT the "original intent" of the Pledge.

    What harm is done by removing the line, restoring the original intent? None, unless you feel America is a Theocracy, and you cannot pledge to America WITHOUT pledgeing to the Judeo-Christian "God".

    Face it folks. You want it in there because YOU believe in God, and YOU are the majority, hence YOU AGREE with the line (makes it easy for you, doesn't it). Thankfully, the Constitution was consciously designed to save the minority (be they non-religious, or "other" religious (i.e. Hamspter Worshipers)) from the power of the majority (i.e. Christianity, and the threat of a Theocracy) on this issue.

    The line in the Pledge will not last much longer. Count on it.

    By the way, just for the official record, the above is more of an intellectual argument for me. Personally, in my own beliefs, I could care less really. I don't think it needs to be in there honestly, and done really think it serves much of a purpose other than to foster division, but I am not personally affected by it's presence. I don't have to say it, and it does not affect my daily life. I agree with it's removal in theory, buit don't care enough to actually fight that fight beyond this "debate" post.

    So have a good day, and may the Hampsters Bless you and Intelligently Design a Good Day for You! :D

  16. #16
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like
    Nice Post Warfish, and I would have to agree with most of what you said. Now I don't believe that our God likes our country anymore than any other, but the pledge is important to some people's beliefs, as well as their basic childhood morals. Maybe this thing should be switched to a religious creedo for Christian or whoever residents of the U.S., instead of a political or govenmental creedo or pledge to the Nation.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is a big reason why my kids go to parochial school

    <sign> Pretty much given up hoping this country will stop listening to weasals like that.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Sack Exchange]hey man. Who is to say that the Judge or the person making the complaint isn't Repub. Not likely, but why whine about the whiners. What is your take on this situation, and how does it affect you, that is what I want to know? I am interested in people's feed back in this. Intelligent feedback.[/QUOTE]


    He is obviously a liberal judge and was appointed by Carter.

    I thought my take on this situation was clear from my post. Liberals whine too much in my opinion. This is further evidence of that. What was unintelligent about my post? That I insulted the guy? He deserved it -it's an absurd decision and I stated clearly that saying the Pledge in school is neither coercive nor a requirement. What more do you want?

    How does it affect me? It demonstrates yet again a troubling trend of liberal judges over-stepping their bounds and completely and deliberately ignoring what the first amendment meant. The "separation of church and state" concept has been distorted far beyond what any reasonable person can agree what was meant by the "Congress shall make no law..." part about the "establishment" of a religion or "prohit the free excercise thereof..."

    Last I checked, Congress hasn't forced anyone to say the Pledge, and neither has any school. Ever. Last I checked, the phrase "under God" didn't [I]establish[/I] a relgion. Last I checked, no one is being prohibited from the free excercise of being an atheist or not believing in God. This court has over-stepped its bounds...it should have refused to hear this case. That was its mistake. In agreeing to hear it, it instantly over-stepped its bounds. This awul decision merely compounds the error.

    People genuflect to judges in this country...they are literally viewing as kings whose actions are beyond reproach by definition. That is folly, absolute folly.


    [B]Fisher [/B] - legislators cannot be activists, by definition. Your assumption is deeply flawed, and I will explain why. Legislators [I]legislate[/I] - that is, they write new laws, amend existing ones, or eliminate existing ones. They vote on these and there are clear rules for this process. They are elected and represent the will of the people. Why is this important? The constitution clearly states "We the people." That means us - not the framers or people living in the past. The framers themselves understood this (read the Federalist Papers) and left mechanisms in place to change and amend the consitution itself in case future groups of "we the people" wanted different things than they did. We can do this through amendments to the constitution, or through laws. "Activism" does not mean simply "change" and does not apply to those elected people whose job is precisely to [I]change[/I] laws, in the ways I described above. 'Activism' applies to judges who (1) agree to hear cases for which they have no business hearing and (2) use the bench to advocate their own personal policy perferences. Justice should be blind. It is not about what is "right" or "wrong" or "fair." It is merely to ensure that the game is played by the rules.

    Legislators are held accoutnable to the people via the electoral process. The Executive Branch is as well. Judges are not. Yes, they are appointed and have to be ratified. But once in office, there is no way to hold them accountable in any practical sense. Thus, when they do things like, say, cite things like, "international law" or a "growing global consensus against the death penalty" in an effort to defend their decisions (which Breyer has done), they are violating the constitution in an egregious mannar. The people of the US don't care about international law or growing global consensuses, and if they did, they would express that through amendments to the Constitution or in the passage of laws that are similar in spirit to those things. But to simply state, "Everyone else thinks this way, so that's the way it is..." is ABSURD. In Bush v Gore, Breyer admitted in his dissent that the re-count requested by Gore in Florida was unconsitutional. He admitted it. But he still dissented, saying, essentially, that the re-count should be allowed due to the "highly charged political climate." So - rules, schmrules, I want Gore to win!

    Re- the harm done by removing or included "Under God" - That is for the legislature to decide, for the people to decide through them. Laws can be changed. Things like the Pledge can be changed. The national anthem can be changed. The Constitution ITSELF can be changed. But it should be done through the proper channels - the people, via the reps they vote for. If congress voted and removed those words, fine. That is fine. They would be doing what their constituents wanted and if the people got mad, they can vote them out.

    Just because you desire the end shouldn't make you neglect the method by which it has been achieved. This is a legislative issue, not a judicial one. Liberals have FAILED MISERABLY tin enacting their policies via the elected legislators, and now do so through the courts. It's disgusting....
    Last edited by jets5ever; 09-14-2005 at 04:38 PM.

  19. #19
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,743
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Piper]This is a big reason why my kids go to parochial school

    <sign> Pretty much given up hoping this country will stop listening to weasals like that.[/QUOTE]

    OK, you have a reason. What is it? :huh: No maliciousness intended here Piper, I'm just interested to hear a wee bit more on this subject from you, especially you given our past discussions.

    I'd be very interested to know what purpose you think this added line serves today, and what specific harm is done if it is removed.

    I promice, I will NOT attack you in any way for your viewpoint if you respond. :D

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    4,430
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Piper]This is a big reason why my kids go to parochial school

    <sign> Pretty much given up hoping this country will stop listening to weasals like that.[/QUOTE]

    what you dont want your kids reading Dick and Dick are mommy and daddy?
    Dont want teachers teaching it's okay to abort kids?
    Dont want thugs selling pot in the hallway of the school?

    wassamatterwithyou?
    Sheeesh
    ;)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us