Sign in to follow this  
Guest

U.S. Pledge of Allegiance now illegal....

Recommended Posts

Boy.... no wonder public opinion of Lawyers and Judges is so low. That entire court should be impeached. Who appointed them ... Clinton?The Phrase "One Nation Under God" ...... is the objectionable part.What an absurd decision. "In God We Trust"..... is on our friggin money. The legal proffession is out of control, irresponsible, incapable of self regulation and just clogging up every facet of American life. The whole proffession should be regulated. BobP :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I happen to agree with the decision. It's an Appeal's Court Decision. This one will go to the Supreme Court most likely. The phrase "under god" was added to the original pledge in 1954 by a bunch of commie fearing folks who were overreacting. Religion or even the mention of religion has no place in our public schools. After all, the establishment clause was the very first clause in the first amendment in the bill of rights. So long as the schools are being funded by taxes, they are government. Why can't folks understand that very simple very basic all important right. The problem in this case wasn't that the pledge was required to be made which has already been held to be unconstitutional; but that those that objected to reciting the pledge as worded were being chastised by other students who thought they should recite it. Typical school harrassment stuff.The Supreme Court will be deciding the school voucher issue tomorrow. That will be the one very important decision this year. Let's hope they get it right or it'll be the beginning of the end of our public school system. Finding that tax paid vouchers are constitutional would be like holding that separate but equal is constitutional. That'll end up being a gift of $5000+/- to those who decide to send their kids to a $15000 private school. Now, who'll be able to take advantage of that?? Let me guess. It'll be that young minimum wage mother who works at Walmart that'll get to take advantage of the voucher program. Yeah, right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mgdbottled..And as you know, this particular Court was picked for appeal because of it's extreme left wing rulings. Twenty nine of thirty 9th District Court rulings have been reversed by the Supreme Court. It is a political game sir.... and it stinks.BobP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the Knights of Columbus, of which I am a member, is the organization that proposed the words "Under God" to be added on the pledge.As to the commie fearing, I guess we turned out to be right after all, IMHO. :-)Keep in mind the following ramifications.1) It does not take effect until 3 months, allowing for appeal2) This ruling would mean that God Bless America, and America The Beautiful will no longer be allowed to be played or sung in schools. Any song with the word God, or book, or anything will be outlawed, thus forcing censorship in the public schools.As to your comment about school vouchers, maybe it will be the beginning of CHOICE in schooling. Why should my taxes go to a system yo which I receive no benefit. But I live in Illinois, so I got back $500 from our Private School Tax Credit program as a refund of taxes I paid into the system. Thanks for the money, please send more... :-waveHere is the Good News.The biggest holders of WorldComthink the other language contained in the pledge may be more offending to some than the "under god" language. Like, "I pledge allegance to the flag of the United States of America" why???? do I have to do that to go to school or to even listen to it??? "and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". My constitution doesn't require that I be patriotic of go pledge anything. All I need to do as a citizen is obey the laws of the land and I might add "pay my bills". I can be rude, a jerk, and a big pain to everyone I meet. That's my right. I can burn the flag if I want. That's my right. I could resent (I don't but I could resent) the fact that that pledge requires me or my children to pledge or even listen to a pledge of allegiance and patriotism to the United States. But; there's no language in the constitution that prevents the government from trying to brainwash anyone into being patriotic at an early age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,I am reading this thread with great interest. As a Brit I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be taken up by the ENTIRE 9th circuit where it will be struck down before having the opportunity to go to SCOTUS.My son and I have a RIGHT as you call it to say the pledge wherever we want. SCOTUS has already ruled that students in a public school can say prayers at school, and if it offends those who do not believe, I could really give a rip.You portend to have knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yet you fail to understand that they were put there to keep alive the right to practice any religion freely.One need only look at the Federalist papers to understand the clarity of the establishment clause. As to the senate, yes, I agree, that was made in support holding no bearing on the Judicial Branch of Government.But if you think this will stand, I'm sorry, but IMHO, you might as well join the UN, trash the entire Government of The United States of America and start listening to Kofi A. and the rest of his malcontents.This country has problems IMHO, because of silly lawsuits just like this, and is responsible for the downfall of values, morals, right and wrong.So you think that the 9th circuit will trump SCOTUS. Sounds like FloriDuhhhh! all over again, and they let the Floridiots on their court know who interprets the Final law, and it is not the 9th.Do Atheists have a right not to practice. Yes, but it is my right to say a prayer, a pledge, or sing God Bless America, and SCOTUS has already concurred with my viewpoint, so you lose. And so does the 9th Circuit who is currently the laughing stock of this country.And you can take that one to the Federal Reserve Bank.Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Boy.... no wonder public opinion of Lawyers and Judges is so >low. That entire court should be impeached. Who appointed >them ... Clinton?Well uhh...no Bob, actually it was Richard Nixon back 1969 who appointed Goodwin. I know how tempting it is to blame Clinton for everything wrong in the world but not only did he not appoint this judge he's actually listed in the suit that this idiot in California filed against the USA. These guys are just circuit judges,this means nothing.I haven't heard or read any statement yet from Bill Clinton but I highly doubt that he'd agree with this decision. Facts should be found out first....David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, this is the way it works. The first amendment does not contain any subclauses, therefore the list of rights contained therein must be seen as examples of the same constitutional principle, i.e. a violation of any of them constitutes a violation of the amendment. So, any rulings on any of the rights contained in the amendment should be coherent in the interpretation of the law, they can only differ on points of fact. For example, a ruling on a point of law on a matter regarding freedom to exercise religion, will automatically become a precedent on cases regarding free speech.Cheers,Gosta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But if you think this will stand, I'm sorry, but IMHO, you >might as well join the UN, trash the entire Government of >The United States of America and start listening to Kofi A. >and the rest of his malcontents.Doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me - maybe then Americans would realise, that they're just one nation among many, after all... >Do Atheists have a right not to practice. Yes, but it is my >right to say a prayer, a pledge, or sing God Bless America,Did the court say any different? It just ruled it unconstitutional to mandate anyone to say the pledge.Cheers,Gosta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''You portend to have knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yet you fail to understand that they were put there to keep alive the right to practice any religion freely''Well, I hope I understand the constitution since I've been a lawyer for the past 16 years. Everybody in this country has the right to practice their religion whatever it may be. The government however; is not allowed by law to practice or establish a religion. Our founding fathers made that very clear. There is no mention of god anywhere in the federal constitution. None!!! Thank goodness for that. If we were to let our schools preach religion, then I'd suggest that they preach only the Muslem religion. No christian teaching allowed. Now, what do you think about that?? Maybe the schools should preach the Muslem religion on Mondays, Budism on Tuesdays, Ethieism on Wednesdays and Devil Worship on Thursdays. We'll let Fridays be a free for all for any christians who want to speak. What's wrong?? Don't agree with that??? Well, our founding fathers figured that problem out before they drafted the constitution. They learned from practical experience in England, that such an establishment clause was an absolutely necessary element in any free society that was to be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,You said:"Doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me - maybe then Americans would realise, that they're just one nation among many, after all..."We realize that we are a Republic, and we will make the laws in our own land. Gosta, I am afraid that you may not fully understand our Constitution and Our laws.You said:"Did the court say any different? It just ruled it unconstitutional to mandate anyone to say the pledge."Wrong answer my friend. Did you read the decision. It does not state that, and maybe instead of listening to some press person or TV, you will download the decision and read it. Please do your research before commenting on a subject that you may not be fully aware of.The Pledge does not mandate anyone or force anyone to say it. The Supreme Court of The United States has already ruled in this regard, like prayer which students can pray in a school if they like. They cannot however force someone to say prayer or force anyone to say the pledge.The 9th Circuit Court of appeals will be laughed out big time, I promise you that.Regards,Joe..http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''The 9th Circuit Court of appeals will be laughed out big time, I promise you that.Regards,''Joe; I think you're right in that the Appeals Court (the full court) will reverse this decision. I think that's how the procedure works. A review by the full court. It's a bit of a stretch to say that the mere mention of a diety without being more specific by a school falls within the establishment clause. I don't think it does. Two of these three judges were appointed by Republicans. What would you expect?? hehehehe. Danged Republicans. hehehehe. But, I still agree with the decision in principle. Regardless of what the full court does, this issue will likely be addressed by the Supreme Court. And, it'll be held that it does not fall within the clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. :-beerchugYou said:"Well, I hope I understand the constitution since I've been a lawyer for the past 16 years."Whatever your name is, you think because you have the title of Lawyer that you know the laws any better than I. Please, maybe you are impressed by stating a title, but I am not.As a Lawyer, which part of this do you not understand. Why did you feel the need to state that. Lawyers don't hold the monopoly in this country on the reading of laws, or do they in your opinion."Amendment ICongress 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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.""OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXCERSISE THEREOF" "OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH"Hello, Amendment #1. It may not say God, but it says religion, and if you think the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance establishes religion, you are in the absolute minority on that one. Here is a poll that that indicate how far you are really out of reality on this one.Fox news: 89% say the 9th is WRONG on this onehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56312,00.htmlOh, I know maybe our friend zogby will poll some non-citizens who just happen to have their phone numbers published to state they dissagree.Here is another Gem. The two Judges in this case should be impeached of their duties by The Congress of The United States which as a Lawyer, you know has the power to remove Judges.Furthermore, they would not have had to pull a judge out of retirement on this circuit if daschle and his ill gotten, IMHO, senate committee had allowed Judge Recommendations to be sent to the floor of the whole Senate for a vote. This one is going to be huge in the November Election, so I say maybe some good will come of this afterall, and the Citizens of The United States will realize just how daschle is circumventing the Executive Branch Powers of the Constitution Of The United States. I think we need a Constitutional Amendment stating that leadership of the Senate or House does not change until that Senator whose party he/she ran on in the Election they were elected serves out their term.Common Sense will prevail, not stupidity and circumvention of the Constitution.Regards,Joe :-wave PS - With regards to the word God, we used that in The Declaration of Independence which proves that it was a consideration of our founding fathers and I will let their words state it here:"The Declaration of Independence: A TranscriptionIN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation..http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>We realize that we are a Republic, and we will make the laws >in our own land. Gosta, I am afraid that you may not fully >understand our Constitution and Our laws.I think you may have misread my comment - I did not refer to your constitution, or your laws, but mainly to foreign policy and the US' continous disregard for international law. It's off-topic, though. ;) >You said: >"Did the court say any different? It just ruled it >unconstitutional to mandate anyone to say the pledge." >>Wrong answer my friend. Did you read the decision. Yes, I did. Here are some of the relevant points:Rather, he claims that his daughter is injuredwhen she is compelled to "watch and listen as her stateemployedteacher in her state-run school leads her classmatesin a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic]is `one nation under God.' [10] In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act addingthe words "under God" to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD's policyand practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, withthe added words included, violate the Establishment Clause.The judgment of dismissal is vacated with respect to thesetwo claims, and the cause is remanded for further proceedingsconsistent with our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs onthis appeal.It quite clearly objects to the policy and practice of reciting the pledge. Anything further would have been outside the court's scope, as the plaintiff's original complaint was about the mere fact that his daughter was 'compelled' to listen to the pledge. A minor change in the school's policy, namely to offer the choice for those wishing not to participate in the recital of the pledge to assemble in a different room, would ensure full compliance with the ruling.Therefore, it does not really venture any further than previous Supreme Court rulings, it just adds clarification.Cheers,Gosta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this