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

[Sonar5 3]

Hi Again,You forgot to add:"Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge"You also need to read further down about West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, where it stated that no one is compelled to recite the pledge. Compel in our legal system is a very strong word. I see where you are coming from and I understand your interpretation.But remember, this will be overturned, so I really don't care too much about what they wrote because they are wrong in their interpretation, and it will be as if this case never came to be after the full 9th or Scotus is done with them.There are no requirements forcing her to recite it. I think there should be a pledge to the Constitution, maybe something like this."I Pledge allegence to the Constitution of The United States, especially The Bill of Rights. 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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Regards,Joe.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[gosta 0]

>But remember, this will be overturned,That's a bit presumptious, isn't it? :) >"I Pledge allegence to the Constitution of The United >States, especially The Bill of Rights. 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 the right of the >people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government >for a redress of grievances. Now there's an idea - why don't you lobby your congressman to introduce a bill to that effect?Cheers,Gosta.

[Guest]

Good heavens, Joe.I assume you don't think its ok if someone DOESN'T believe in any Gods. And following that of course, those people should be forced to recite a pledge to a God (ANY God) they don't believe in.Thank heaven you are wrong.http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

[gosta 0]

>You forgot to add: >>"Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or >school district requires his daughter to participate in >reciting the Pledge" >>You also need to read further down about West Virginia State >Board of Education vs. Barnette, where it stated that no one >is compelled to recite the pledge. Compel in our legal >system is a very strong word. Yes, I know - I wanted to include a lot more, but then I would have ended up posting the entire decision minus the obiter dicta. Somehow, I don't think that would have gone down too well with the forum administrators...;). Particularly interesting is the reasoning regarding the plaintiff's standing.So, for those who are interested, here's the link to the ruling:http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinion...pdf?openelementCheers,Gosta.EDIT: P.S.: The link opens a .pdf file in your browser, so make sure you have Acrobat Reader installed.

[Sonar5 3]

">But remember, this will be overturned,That's a bit presumptious, isn't it?"Nahhh, It is so utterly silly that it is a no brainer. I have been blessed by God with having a little common sense and this one reeks of common sense, and decisions that SCOTUS makes will trump this one like they have many other decisions that have come out of the 9th."Now there's an idea - why don't you lobby your congressman to introduce a bill to that effect?"Maybe I will, maybe I have... You'll have to buy my book for my full opinions. :-)(Still in my head of course, but getting closer to starting it.)BTW - Thanks for posting the link, we should of listed that one earlier. :-)regards,Joe :-wave.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

''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.''Answer: Yes, I think lawyers know the laws much better than lay persons. I'm not a constitutional expert; but I think I have a pretty good understanding of the language therein.''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.''Answer: Yes, lawyers protect the people from their government. Or didn't you know that. Without lawyers, you wouldn't live in this wonderful free society. Lawyers are the defenders of freedom. Think about that. Who would you call if a cop throws your butt in jail?? A politician??? I kinda doubt that. The only person other than yourself that can represent you in a court is a licensed lawyer. So yes, I suppose lawyers do hold a monopoly of a sort in this country. The courts interpret the law. No one else. ''"Amendment I''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 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"''Answer: Neither the exercise of religion or free speech have anything to do with this case. The only relevant portion of the first amendment is the establishment clause. Nobody is debating their free speech right or their free exercise of religion right. The case deals with the right of the government to establish religion period. Nothing else.''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.html''Answer; The courts unlike politicians could care less about polls. The courts base their decisions on the law. Period. End of story. The courts interpret the law. The legislatures make the law. Politics and religion and opinion polls are left outside the courtroom on the front steps. Thank goodness for that or we'd really have a mess.Oh, 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.''Answer: We don't impeach judges just because we happen to disagree with their decisions. We appeal their decisions to higher courts. That's how the system works.''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.'' Answer: Two of these judges were appointed by Republicans. Daschle disagrees with the decision. I don't understand your logic.''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.''Answer; No we don't. Common Sense will prevail, not stupidity and circumvention of the Constitution.Answer: No circumvention of the constitution. Just an interpretation.Regards,Joe ''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.''Answer: The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Notice how the founding fathers intentionally left all that colorful language out of the constitution.

[Sonar5 3]

Hi Elrond,It's pretty simple, actually. I believe a person has a right to believe anything they want to. So if someone does not believe in God, that's ok with me. But they should not intrude on my rights to freely express it.It is a bit different than let's say second-hand smoke where someone can show an injury or get cancer.You can't get cancer from listening to the Pledge or reciting it.. i think.. :-hmmm :-lol :-lolI just feel my right to freely express trumps their CHOICE to not have to listen.Remember, California is a state that requires recitation, but SCOTUS already stated in prior decisions that you cannot compel someoen to recite.Now Do I have a problem with someone not reciting the pledge. On a Moral ground, yes, but not on a legal ground as I respect their decision to not recite.Remember, and let me be clear on this for our good friends that are not United States Citizens. When listening to your press or reading your paper, there is no law that COMPELS or REQUIRES or MANDATES someone to recite the Pledge. This was already settled in a case by The Supreme Court of The United States of America prior to the 1954 addition of the "Under God" wording.So if someone teels you this girl was forced to recite, they are wrong and so is the press if that is what they are reporting.Regards,Joe :-wave.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Sonar5 3]

You said:"Answer: Yes, I think lawyers know the laws much better than lay persons. I'm not a constitutional expert; but I think I have a pretty good understanding of the language therein."Well, I think I know more than a lot of Attorneys I know. :-)You said:"Answer: Yes, lawyers protect the people from their government. Or didn't you know that. Without lawyers, you wouldn't live in this wonderful free society. Lawyers are the defenders of freedom. Think about that. Who would you call if a cop throws your butt in jail?? A politician??? I kinda doubt that. The only person other than yourself that can represent you in a court is a licensed lawyer. So yes, I suppose lawyers do hold a monopoly of a sort in this country. The courts interpret the law. No one else."You think Lawyers protect the people from Government. I disagree, as I believe the people hold the power, not some lawyers. That is about the silliest statement you have made today. Without lawyers, I wouldn't have the freedoms we have..... Please..... I diasgree with that one too. That position is pretty sad, I think.The People are the defenders of Freedom, not lawyers. Now, I have quite a few close friends who are Attorney's, and I think that your statements above are absolutely silly, IMHO.Do you think people should be allowed to represent themselves?You said:"Answer: Two of these judges were appointed by Republicans. Daschle disagrees with the decision. I don't understand your logic."Simple, Judges have come out of retirement because of UNFULFILLED VACANCIES. Fernandez dissented and was appointed by Bush Sr. There are vacancies because daschel refuses to send the proposed Judges to the floor for a full vote. Are you telling me, as a Lawyer, you cannot undestand that one. Ummmm, ok, I guess... And Goodwin, please.... That guy should have been in a home for retired Judges a while ago. With regard to God,You Said:"Answer: The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Notice how the founding fathers intentionally left all that colorful language out of the constitution."They didn't leave it out, they called it the right to freely express religion which is in the Constitution. You just don't want to acknowledge that right. Joe.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

"But they should not intrude on my rights to freely express it."And they are doing that how? How are you stopped from visiting your place of worship anytime you feel like it? Or saying your prayers at night? Or etc, etc, etc? You are advocating forcing your beliefs on someone else - plain and simple. You are still free to express your beliefs in any non-government building you wish. In any (legal) way you see fit. At any time of day or night. 365 days a year."It is a bit different than let's say second-hand smoke where someone can show an injury or get cancer."I completely beg to differ. If you don't think emotional stress, public peer pressure, religious persecution (even when your religion is "none"... Probably even more so), etc, etc, etc isn't an injury, you are sadly mistaken. Its called Mental "Health" for a reason, Joe."I just feel my right to freely express trumps their CHOICE to not have to listen."Express all you want till you're blue in the face. Outside a government building! No one in their right mind is stopping you. Lets get real here."So if someone teels you this girl was forced to recite, they are wrong and so is the press if that is what they are reporting."That has absolutely nothing in the world to do with it. Its separation of Church and State: plain and simple. Confuse it up with moral ambiguity all you wish - but the facts and this issue is simple.Separation of Church and State.Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

[Sonar5 3]

Ok here goes...When this is so easily overturned, what will you say then. Will you come back and say I was right.This is a no-brainer. You said:"I completely beg to differ. If you don't think emotional stress, public peer pressure, religious persecution (even when your religion is "none"... Probably even more so), etc, etc, etc isn't an injury, you are sadly mistaken. Its called Mental "Health", Joe."I just disagree with your analogy that they are being persecuted or experiencing injury. To me, that is simply absurd. They have a CHOICE to not recite. That was already upheld, and again, This decision will be reversed, or I'm buying the beer. :-) <-----Cut and Paste that one :-beerchugElrond, you said:"You are still free to express your beliefs in any non-government building you wish. In any (legal) way you see fit. At any time of day or night. 365 days a year."I have to clarify here that our Courts have also upheld my Right to freely express my religion on Public Property as well. And that means I can say prayers in any GOVERNMENT building I like., That is the law in this land, and it is rooted in precedent. Please don't think that I do not have a right to express my beliefs in a government building, because I do have that right.I apologize for stating this, but I don't necessarilly go around talking about laws I have not researched as they apply to Canada, Mexico, The UK, or any other country. Unless I have researched them.Now if someone wants to dispute United States laws, and they are not Citizens, they should at least give me the courtesy of doing some research on our laws and that means understanding prior Supreme Court Decisions.Regards,Joe :-wave.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

Very interesting topic and well thought out opinions which is all any of us have. Although I haven't followed this issue, and seldom post a response to anything around here, this one interested me. Apparently from what Joe said, if I read it correctly, means that God Bless America and the associated comments are not going to be allowed. As I have no religious beliefs, this aspect is really of no importance to me as such. It is to some and I respect that right and also the sacrifices some have made to maintain that right. My family members have fought and died for this country for the 238 years that their presence here can be verified. As a youngster, I was exposed to religion by parents that left it up to me to make up my own mind and to make my own decisions. When in the US military, that is a family tradition, I was more or less forced to participate in these functions. Was I offended? Not really. It was tradition just like saluting the flag and I did not feel like anything was being forced on me nor were my personal beliefs being imposed upon as some apparently believe they are now and want to legislate changes. One thing that worries me. Is the American cultural heritage being taken away from us by forcing us to please other cultures and to conform to their desires? What's next on the agenda? No more National Anthem at public gatherings or flying the flag? I live in a town with a large Naval presence, both active, ex, and retired which I am a part of. This would not go over well. Maybe avsim should start a political forum as it would be interesting to give various opinions.jb

[Guest]

" just disagree with your analogy that they are being persecuted or experiencing injury. To me, that is simply absurd. They have a CHOICE to not recite."Spoken as only someone who has never been persecuted can speak (and I'm thankful for that). It doesn't matter what you think is absurd or not, Joe. Facts are facts: read all you can on the effects of peer pressure and religious persecution in your local health section of the library. Or even better, get a degree in mental health. Or don't - it doesn't matter. Because it doesn't change the facts. Remember Columbine? Just a tiny (almost insignificant) example compared to the history of this "problem". And religious persecution? Dwarfs peer pressure problems down the drain."This decision will be reversed"And if/when it is? How does this change anything about this issue? There are bad laws Joe. There always have been and there always will be. Did you know it is illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds in Idaho? Does it matter? No. Thank heaven its our right as Americans to try and change them even in the face of their injustice - or stupidity."I apologize for stating this, but I don't necessarily go around talking about laws I have not researched as they apply to Canada, Mexico, The UK, or any other country. Unless I have researched them.Now if someone wants to dispute United States laws, and they are not Citizens, they should at least give me the courtesy of doing some research on our laws and that means understanding prior Supreme Court Decisions."Good heavens.I am a US citizen Joe - I'm not Canadian. I'm only a landed immigrant here in Canada. I was born and bred in the heartland (Kansas City MO) and have spent most of my life in the United States (Missouri, Illinois, Colorado, Arizona, California and Florida to be exact). I now live in Canada with my Canadian wife. I don't presume to know how much you have learned about American law and the constitution. I do know, however, that I've spent a large part of my life as an activist - which includes learning the law and the Constitution fairly well. And now as an immigrant Canadian, I do the same here.Don't presume what you don't know Joe. Because, as this case clearly shows, you'll most likely be wrong.Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

[Francois_Dumas 10]

:-lol Interesting reading, indeed.. thanks for that ! :-) :-outta Francois :-wave[table border=0 cellpadding=10 cellspacing=0][tr][td valign=bottom" align="center]"At home in the wild"[/td][td valign=bottom" align="center][link:avsim.com/alaska/alaska_051.htm|Don's Alaskan Bush Charters]"Beavers Lead the Way"[/td][td valign=bottom" align="center][link:www.avsim.com/vfr_center/mainpages/vfr_flights_main_page.htm]VFR Flight Center]"Looking Good Outside"[/td][/tr][tr][td valign=top" align="center]http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif[/td][td valign="top" align="left" colspan=2]http://www.fssupport.com/images/moose2.gif[/td][tr][/table]________________________Francois A. "Navman" DumasAssociate Editor &Forums AdministratorAVSIM Online![/bemail: fdumas@avsim.com________________________

[Guest]

Yes; I agree. The Brit's thread above is the most interesting of the lot. Well done. Well said.

[Guest lawyerpilot]

Although Marbury vs. Madison is likely the compass that will be used for this process, as the issue is ripe, and dealing with a constitutional issue (establishment clause), we also must look at the possibility that the court will restrain itself so as to not be accused of "judicial activism". Since the Lochner era, in the early 20th century, when legislation was struck down left and right, primarily b/c the laws were looked at as an abuse of the Commerce Clause (the most frequently cited allegation), the Supreme Court has been very laissez faire and let Congress pass "oodles of legislation" with nary a word said. Now with many of the Reagan appointees in power (a good thing), many (the majority) of the Justices are believers in the orginial framer's intent argument as opposed to a liberal interpretation. Anyway, bottom line, more legislation has been struck down after the late 70's by the current court. Even though the people (hence Congress) should decide on the content of their national anthem through legislative means, the Court will likely play an active role b/c there is a question of Constitutionality involved, specifically tied to the Establshment clause, instead of denying cert and deferring to Congress's ability to solve the issue democratically.Respectfully submitted by a humble law clerk who still has a lot of law to cover, CMBP4 1.8768 ram 80 gig hardriveVisiontek Ti4 4600CH yoke/pedals19" inch monitor-Soundblaster PCI 512Win XPPrivate PilotAOPALawyerPilots Bar Association"Men without dreams are never free, twas thus this way and thus will ever be."