Modern Liberalism at Work: Pledge of Allegiance Deemed Unconstitutional

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
Sep 14 2:39 PM US/Eastern

By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was declared unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge ruling in the second attempt by an atheist to have the pledge removed from classrooms. The man lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools.

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.

"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.

Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.
Link ( http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK6SOO2.html)

[mykevermin]

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Is there something here that you disagree with?

[alonzomourning23]

Well, PAD, why don't you counter with a legal or constitutional basis of why it should be allowed. It's not even part of our original history, since it was only put it to differentiate us from "godless communists".

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

[PKRipp3r]

hooray for modern liberalism!!!
___________________________________________
The pledge was written in 1892 by Baptist minister and educator Francis Bellamy, who made no reference to religion in his version. It was originally worded: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It quickly became a part of public school programs.

In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," after pressure by the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/

[evanft]

One judge=Entire modern liberal movement?

Congratulations, you suck at math.

[Mike23]

It still is kinda ridiculous. I mean, the intent of reciting it is patriotism, not prayer.

[alonzomourning23]

It still is kinda ridiculous. I mean, the intent of reciting it is patriotism, not prayer.

But that part is to indicate that this is a nation of god.

[mykevermin]

It still is kinda ridiculous. I mean, the intent of reciting it is patriotism, not prayer.

Take off, you socialist heathen, eh?

I kid, of course. Considering what little PAD has contributed to the vs forums recently, I'm considering putting him on ignore. It's not like he brings as discourse to the table. Instead we have Sean Penn armed = "SEAN PENN AND AL1 TEH LIBRULS HATES TEH NIGROS"; or, when a judge decides that one line in the pledge (a line younger than your grandparents, I might add) is unconstitutional, instead of discourse, we get "OMG TEH LIBRULS HATE THE BUSH AND US CONSTITUTION PLEDGE WHAT THE HALL!!?"

Really, my father debates like that. He shouts some nonsense in your direction, and gets up from the table before you can retort. PAD comes in here with topics intended to gig us into reaction, and when shown to be completely incorrect and/or misinformed (and given his media preferences, I am more than happy to provide him "misinformed" forgiveness more often than not), he simply disappears. He's annoying, he's disrespectful, and I'm frankly sick of his fucking bland-ass hyperbole. I don't listen to Ann Coulter blather on in hyper-eggageratory tones like she's the Macho Man Randy Motherfuckin' Savage because it's dumb and it's not intelligent discourse. I don't see why I should give PAD any more credit than that shrill banshee of idiocy.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Can a candidate win election taking this stance?

No.

Will you ever have a Presidential candidate come out against this?

No.

Think what you want but it's a loser politically and socially and opposing the pledge in its current form is a political death wish. What do I care if you're against it? It just keeps adding to the list of reasons why people won't support liberal candidates.

[Quackzilla]

FYI, the first ammendment also gives peole the right to not say things.

[alonzomourning23]

Can a candidate win election taking this stance?

No.

Will you ever have a Presidential candidate come out against this?

No.

Think what you want but it's a loser politically and socially and opposing the pledge in its current form is a political death wish. What do I care if you're against it? It just keeps adding to the list of reasons why people won't support liberal candidates.

Not that I'm comparing the two in importance or magnitude, but would a presidential candidate come out for full equality and integration of minorities in 1904? Not having public support has nothing to do with whether it's correct or not, at least in cases like this.


FYI, the first ammendment also gives peole the right to not say things.

So you're for public school prayer and official government positions on religion? People can just not say it or ignore it, and that should be fine with you.

[Quackzilla]

No, I'm just saying they can't make me say anything I don't want to.

[camoor]

Seriously, it's the 21st century, isn't it time to stop propping up monotheistic religion with the forced indoctrination of children? The only way I want my tax dollars being spent is in the teaching of science, arts, healthy living, and creative thinking skills.

[evanft]

Optional or not, the Pledge is school-sponsored, and since it contains the line "under God" it is tantamount to prayer. And since school-sponsored prayer is against the law, bada-bing.

[mykevermin]

Seriously, it's the 21st century, isn't it time to stop propping up monotheistic religion with the forced indoctrination of children? The only way I want my tax dollars being spent is in the teaching of science, arts, healthy living, and creative thinking skills.

It occurred to me recently as I was studying some classical theory texts that the agenda of christian conservatives (whether they want to admit this or not) is to annihilate the progress brought forth by the enlightenment. Seriously.

It also made me realize, even more than ever, that all forms of medicine are inherently liberal. More conservatives should make like Jim Henson.

[Ikohn4ever]

its stupid monotonous crap. You dont make patriots by force feeding them words, especially in schools. Its a waste of time, and prob pushed more students away from caring then inspiring democratic beliefs. Its as about as useful as an appendix in the human body.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I just wish they'd take "In God We Trust" off the fucking money. :bomb:

[sgs89]

I just wish they'd take "In God We Trust" off the fucking money. :bomb:

The United States Supreme Court has held that de minimis state invocation of religion is not violative of the Constitution. This includes, inter alia, "in God we trust" on the money and the opening prayer recited at the beginning of the term in the Supreme Court. Indeed, it is beyond dispute that such invocations were commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. So, it is difficult to imagine that the architects of the First Amendment intended to proscribe such things.

The question is whether "under God" is such a de minimis invocation.

Also of note is the question of the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Does a state or Congress "establish" a religion by including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

[zionoverfire]

ndeed, it is beyond dispute that such invocations were commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. So, it is difficult to imagine that the architects of the First Amendment intended to proscribe such things.


Cool! I'm gonna go buy me a nice sexy black slave woman when I get home.

[sgs89]

Cool! I'm gonna go buy me a nice sexy black slave woman when I get home.

I guess you've never heard of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Your attempt at an argument in opposition to a strict "original intent" interpretation of the Constitution has just failed miserably. Congratulations.

[zionoverfire]

I guess you've never heard of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Your attempt at an argument in opposition to a strict "original intent" interpretation of the Constitution has just failed miserably. Congratulations.

Actually you just proved my point for me, if you want god on your money pass an amendment.:applause:

[sgs89]

Actually you just proved my point for me, if you want god on your money pass an amendment.:applause:

Once again, you reveal your total lack of understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution acts as a limitation on federal power. There is nothing in the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that prohibits the Legislature from including the phrase "in God we trust" on the money.

If you want to change that, YOU have to pass an amendment.

[alonzomourning23]

Once again, you reveal your total lack of understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution acts as a limitation on federal power. There is nothing in the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that prohibits the Legislature from including the phrase "in God we trust" on the money.

If you want to change that, YOU have to pass an amendment.

State sponsorship of religion. And the use of "god", in the singular, indicates support for a particular form of religion.

[camoor]

The United States Supreme Court has held that de minimis state invocation of religion is not violative of the Constitution. This includes, inter alia, "in God we trust" on the money and the opening prayer recited at the beginning of the term in the Supreme Court. Indeed, it is beyond dispute that such invocations were commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. So, it is difficult to imagine that the architects of the First Amendment intended to proscribe such things.

The question is whether "under God" is such a de minimis invocation.

Also of note is the question of the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Does a state or Congress "establish" a religion by including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I don't agree that phrases on our money are "de minimis"

Money is important to almost every American. Greenbacks are also our face to the world. I, for one, do not want anything on the dollar bill that doesn't reflect the values of democracy, freedom and captialism for which America stands.

Of course - the quote from the Aeneid, the 13 stepped pyramid, and the illuminating eye of Horus can stay, because they are freaking sweet :D

[zionoverfire]

Once again, you reveal your total lack of understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution acts as a limitation on federal power. There is nothing in the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that prohibits the Legislature from including the phrase "in God we trust" on the money.

If you want to change that, YOU have to pass an amendment.

Um no, you disproved your own point. So you have to go pass one. As you mentioned earlier the constitution with the amendments is not the same document our furfather's created so their unspoken intentions don't matter.

[sgs89]

OK, zion is not worth arguing with because he/she is nonsensical.

To the other comments, I say that the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Such displays of religion have been upheld as they were commonplace at the time of the adoption of the First Amendment. You may not agree that, as a policy matter, it is a good thing to include such references to religion. In fact, I agree that it is not a good thing -- I would prefer that our money NOT include that phrase. But, our recourse, my friends, is in the Legislature, not in the Courts. If you don't like it, get Congress to change it.

[zionoverfire]

OK, zion is not worth arguing with because he/she is nonsensical.


I'm nonsensical?:lol: I'm not the one contradicting myself. You can't have the will of the forfathers when you modify their words.

[sgs89]

Um no, you disproved your own point. So you have to go pass one. As you mentioned earlier the constitution with the amendments is not the same document our furfather's created so their unspoken intentions don't matter.

I can't let this pass without a comment. Our "furfather's" (by which I assume you mean our "Forefathers") adopted the Bill of Rights at roughly the same time as the Constitution.

Our Forefathers recognized that there may well come a time that the Constitution needed to be changed. They accounted for that by establishing a procedure by which the Constitution could be amended (although it is not easy). Therefore, later adoption of amendments (including the 13th and 14th Amendments) is entirely consistent with the Forefathers' views.

[mykevermin]

furfathers? Shit, what am I doing here, I've got to get to the gay bar!

*cue Electric Six*

[zionoverfire]

Therefore, later adoption of amendments (including the 13th and 14th Amendments) is entirely consistent with the Forefathers' views.

See that's where we have a huge difference of opinion and yes my spelling is horrible, sadly I can't get firefox to let me cut and paste on CAG so any spell checking is quick at best.

I would say that the forefathers intended for the constitution to be changed but to say that any change is consistent with their views is to say that their views can be contradictory. One cannot be in favor of slavery and at the same time support its termination.

[sgs89]

See that's where we have a huge difference of opinion and yes my spelling is horrible, sadly I can't get firefox to let me cut and paste on CAG so any spell checking is quick at best.

I would say that the forefathers intended for the constitution to be changed but any change does not represent their will since they cannot know the needs of the future, they can know only that those needs will be different from the needs of the present.

To say that anything that is adopted into the constitution is consistent with their views is laughable. We could create a constitutional admendment allowing for a King, I'm pretty sure they if alive today would detest that even more than our abolishment of slavery.

You really miss the point, I'm afraid.

No one is arguing that the new amendments should be interpreted in light of the original framer's intent. Rather, those amendments are interpreted in light of what THOSE WHO ADOPTED THAT PARTICULAR AMENDMENT intended. So, the 14th Amendment is interpreted in light of the intentions of the post-Civil War framers who drafted and adopted that particular amendment.

The Framers clearly contemplated that new amendments would be adopted that might not be consistent with their original views. Indeed, many of them struggled over the issue of slavery and believed that it would one day be abolished by amendment of the Constitution.

[Sleepkyng]

Sgs89 - your constitutionalist argument is a good one, save for that teeny tiny ruling from that smarmy old Chief Justice Burger:

the lemon test

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

see that last part? think about it for a sec.

[sgs89]

Sgs89 - your constitutionalist argument is a good one, save for that teeny tiny ruling from that smarmy old Chief Justice Burger:

the lemon test

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

see that last part? think about it for a sec.

Putting asided the merits of the Lemon test, I fail to see your point. I don't believe that "under God" represents an excessive government entanglement with religion. Are you claiming that it does?

[Sleepkyng]

putting aside the merits of the lemon test? ipso facto meeny mo, tiger!

One nation implies unity - to what are we united? the states, and under what contract (according to our very own contractatarian philosophy) do we adhere to? - the constitution. So how is it that we may interpret this constitution in a just manner - with them supreme court doods - and what is it that they decided under Chief Justice Burger in '71? - that the lemon test would best screen and determine wether states were interefering with people's rights - and what does the lemon test suggest about "one nation, under God?"

The lemon test is one of the pivotal foundations used for interpreting religious content in compliance with our constitution.

as for excessive government entanglement - how about making a shit load of people say "one nation, under God?"

Furthering that - "one nation, under God" paradoxically advances and inhibits religions all day, every day. It ain't "one nation, under a secular unassuming concept of the idea that people cannot comprehend all that there is to comprehend" now is it?

Let's not also forget that your last statement is not rooted in your constitutional argument, but rather your own opinion.

stick to your guns or back up your opinion.

[zionoverfire]

Rather, those amendments are interpreted in light of what THOSE WHO ADOPTED THAT PARTICULAR AMENDMENT intended.

Well then how about when admendments cancel each other out? It seems to me that amendments and the constitution can really only be taken as teh words written and not some underlying meaning because quite honestly in over 200 years I'm quite sure a number of those meaning has been lost.

[elprincipe]

Well then how about when admendments cancel each other out? It seems to me that amendments and the constitution can really only be taken as teh words written and not some underlying meaning because quite honestly in over 200 years I'm quite sure a number of those meaning has been lost.

This misguided judicial philosophy has produced decisions such as Kelo v City of New London (the property rights/takings case). And due to their writings, the Framers' intentions are pretty well known. Try reading the Federalist Papers, for example.

New amendments can replace/modify previous language as provided for in the Constitution. I fail to see the problem here.

[sgs89]

putting aside the merits of the lemon test? ipso facto meeny mo, tiger!

One nation implies unity - to what are we united? the states, and under what contract (according to our very own contractatarian philosophy) do we adhere to? - the constitution. So how is it that we may interpret this constitution in a just manner - with them supreme court doods - and what is it that they decided under Chief Justice Burger in '71? - that the lemon test would best screen and determine wether states were interefering with people's rights - and what does the lemon test suggest about "one nation, under God?"

The lemon test is one of the pivotal foundations used for interpreting religious content in compliance with our constitution.

as for excessive government entanglement - how about making a shit load of people say "one nation, under God?"

Furthering that - "one nation, under God" paradoxically advances and inhibits religions all day, every day. It ain't "one nation, under a secular unassuming concept of the idea that people cannot comprehend all that there is to comprehend" now is it?

Let's not also forget that your last statement is not rooted in your constitutional argument, but rather your own opinion.

stick to your guns or back up your opinion.

As you may or may not know, the Lemon test (and other, competing tests relevant to the Establishment Clause) has risen and fallen in importance in the years since it articulation. It is not at all clear that the SCOTUS agrees on one unifying test. Hence my statement about "putting aside the merits of the Lemon test."

I have stuck to my guns. You have not. As I've said repeatedly in this thread, government invocation of religion is not per se unconstitutional. Indeed, one of the very subjects of this thread -- the phrase "in God we trust" -- has been UPHELD in more than one appellate court decision, even under the Lemon test. Quite simply, the SCOTUS and lower courts have generally made it clear (the Ninth Circuit excepted) that these types of religious invocation, considered to be de minimis, are permissible.

Indeed, you might be interested in a dicta paragraph from a SCOTUS case invalidating a state practice of forcing its citizens to display a secular motto on their cars:

"It has been suggested that today's holding will be read as sanctioning obliteration of the National motto, 'In God We Trust' from United States coins and currency. That question is not before us today but we note that currency, which is passed from hand to hand, differs in significant respects from an automobile, which is readily associated with its operator. Currency is generally carried in a purse or pocket and need not be displayed by the public. The bearer of currency is thus not required to publicly advertise the National Motto."

Care to re-think your position? It is clearly out-of-step with the manner in which the SCOTUS addresses these issues.

[camoor]

sgs89,

I think you have been talking about the legality of the issue from the standpoint of a supereme court "de minimus" debate. However what about doing the RIGHT thing by all people.

I don't like the fact that people who have various beliefs about the metaphysical are forced into reciting their belief in one god, and forced to use currency that states their unequivical trust in one god.

The problem is further exacerbated, as PAD pointed out, by the fact that any Presidential candidate or majority group of politicians would be held hostage by the religious right if they attempted to reverse this exercise in federally sponsored monotheistic advertising and indoctrination.

Think about it this way - I'm pretty sure that the religious right would be screaming from the rooftops if they had to carry around a state drivers licence that had a quote from the Buddha or Ayn Rand.

[Kayden]

FYI, the first ammendment also gives peole the right to not say things.

Er.... don't you mean the fifth?

[Kayden]

They should just replace 'in god we trust' with 'made in the usa'. Then not only would we satisfy 'those damn liberals' but we'd also have an American product worth owning.

In God we trust is unconstitutional. It advocates christianity/catholocism. If it were for Islam it'd say In Allah. It isn't self depreciating, so it cant be Jewish. (joke) It also implies that polythiests/athiests aren't American. So it does perpetuate/advocate the train of thought that America is Christian nation. Yes, a lot of Americans are Christian/catholic, but that doesn't mean it should be an inherent part of the government.

[sgs89]

sgs89,

I think you have been talking about the legality of the issue from the standpoint of a supereme court "de minimus" debate. However what about doing the RIGHT thing by all people.

I don't like the fact that people who have various beliefs about the metaphysical are forced into reciting their belief in one god, and forced to use currency that states their unequivical trust in one god.

The problem is further exacerbated, as PAD pointed out, by the fact that any Presidential candidate or majority group of politicians would be held hostage by the religious right if they attempted to reverse this exercise in federally sponsored monotheistic advertising and indoctrination.

Think about it this way - I'm pretty sure that the religious right would be screaming from the rooftops if they had to carry around a state drivers licence that had a quote from the Buddha or Ayn Rand.

As I said above, I agree with you that our money shouldn't carry such a slogan. But that is a different question from whether it is unconstitutional. People don't seem to understand that. As held by the federal courts, our gripe is with the Legislature (Congress), not the courts.

[sgs89]

They should just replace 'in god we trust' with 'made in the usa'. Then not only would we satisfy 'those damn liberals' but we'd also have an American product worth owning.

In God we trust is unconstitutional. It advocates christianity/catholocism. If it were for Islam it'd say In Allah. It isn't self depreciating, so it cant be Jewish. (joke) It also implies that polythiests/athiests aren't American. So it does perpetuate/advocate the train of thought that America is Christian nation. Yes, a lot of Americans are Christian/catholic, but that doesn't mean it should be an inherent part of the government.

Saying it is does not make it so. The Framers never intended the First Amendment to proscribe any public invocation of religion, that much is clear. The Supreme Court has so found.

Again, your beef is with the Legislature.

[Quackzilla]

Er.... don't you mean the fifth?
That too, I guess habeas corpus applies in this situation as well as the freedom of speech and symbolic expression, although that part of the fifth ammendment mainly applies against self incrimination and wrongful arrest.

The first ammendment take precident here, so it is a freedom of speech issue.

[Kayden]

Saying it is does not make it so. The Framers never intended the First Amendment to proscribe any public invocation of religion, that much is clear. The Supreme Court has so found.

Again, your beef is with the Legislature.

I don't have a beef with anyone... I was just stating my opinion... You know you've spent too much time in the VS forum when you think everything is a personal attack on you and/or your party.

[Sleepkyng]

As you may or may not know, the Lemon test (and other, competing tests relevant to the Establishment Clause) has risen and fallen in importance in the years since it articulation. It is not at all clear that the SCOTUS agrees on one unifying test. Hence my statement about "putting aside the merits of the Lemon test."

I have stuck to my guns. You have not. As I've said repeatedly in this thread, government invocation of religion is not per se unconstitutional. Indeed, one of the very subjects of this thread -- the phrase "in God we trust" -- has been UPHELD in more than one appellate court decision, even under the Lemon test. Quite simply, the SCOTUS and lower courts have generally made it clear (the Ninth Circuit excepted) that these types of religious invocation, considered to be de minimis, are permissible.

Indeed, you might be interested in a dicta paragraph from a SCOTUS case invalidating a state practice of forcing its citizens to display a secular motto on their cars:

"It has been suggested that today's holding will be read as sanctioning obliteration of the National motto, 'In God We Trust' from United States coins and currency. That question is not before us today but we note that currency, which is passed from hand to hand, differs in significant respects from an automobile, which is readily associated with its operator. Currency is generally carried in a purse or pocket and need not be displayed by the public. The bearer of currency is thus not required to publicly advertise the National Motto."

Care to re-think your position? It is clearly out-of-step with the manner in which the SCOTUS addresses these issues.

well let's take a look at SCOTUS rulings:

Engle v. Vitale ('62) - Schools in NY use "Almighty God" which is then deemed unconstiutional on the grounds of it being more than just moral instruction.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, Early v. DiCenso (1971), and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971) all give rise to the lemon test.

Stone v. Graham (1980) - in Kentucky, posting of the ten commandments violates not only the establishment clause, but also the first part of the lemon test. Cited reasons being that the ten commandments refer to the Sabbath and God.

Looking at the pledge:

written in 1892, adopted by congress in 1942 as a "wartime patriotic tribute" it did NOT include the phrase "under God" - this was later added in 1954 by Congress to instill the idea that other nations, ie USSR were godless.

If Congress changed the pledge to make "under God" and important part just because it made the other side seem godless, doesn't that insinuate something about godless people?

Is that not furthering a religious agenda?

Find me some cases where the lemon test has FAILED, not been ignored - as in the Marsh v. Chambers ruling which clearly outlined the case as a historical one and not one that really centered on religion.

And quit saying "indeed."

It's ok, I know you're a smart guy without the "thus" and indeeds" :D

[sgs89]

I don't have a beef with anyone... I was just stating my opinion... You know you've spent too much time in the VS forum when you think everything is a personal attack on you and/or your party.

You've missed my point, which is that there is a solution to the problem you've presented -- namely, seeking change at Congress. The First Amendment simply doesn't operate in the manner you are suggesting it does.

[Derwood43]

This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.

[sgs89]

well let's take a look at SCOTUS rulings:

Engle v. Vitale ('62) - Schools in NY use "Almighty God" which is then deemed unconstiutional on the grounds of it being more than just moral instruction.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, Early v. DiCenso (1971), and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971) all give rise to the lemon test.

Stone v. Graham (1980) - in Kentucky, posting of the ten commandments violates not only the establishment clause, but also the first part of the lemon test. Cited reasons being that the ten commandments refer to the Sabbath and God.

Looking at the pledge:

written in 1892, adopted by congress in 1942 as a "wartime patriotic tribute" it did NOT include the phrase "under God" - this was later added in 1954 by Congress to instill the idea that other nations, ie USSR were godless.

If Congress changed the pledge to make "under God" and important part just because it made the other side seem godless, doesn't that insinuate something about godless people?

Is that not furthering a religious agenda?

Find me some cases where the lemon test has FAILED, not been ignored - as in the Marsh v. Chambers ruling which clearly outlined the case as a historical one and not one that really centered on religion.

And quit saying "indeed."

It's ok, I know you're a smart guy without the "thus" and indeeds" :D


I'm not sure how to respond to this as it is quite unintelligible.

Here are some points, though:
* The Lemon test is not the only way the SCOTUS analyzes Establishment Clause issues. The Court is divided on the issue of what test or framework to employ.
* You have totally ignored all of the precedent I pointed to in my post, including precedent DIRECTLY ON POINT (that is to say, finding "in God we trust" to be consistent with the Constitution).
* You have failed to recognize the intent of the Framers of the First Amendment. Do you dispute that public invocation of religion, even "state-sponsored" invocations -- was commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution? Do you think the Framers intended the First Amendment to abolish all reference to religion in the public square?
* The fact that you don't like the motto on our currency -- neither do I -- does not mean it is unconstitutional. The people have chosen that motto through their elected representatives. If you don't like it, vote them out and elect people who see the issue in the same way as you do.
* As for my writing style, it is what it is. Believe me, I am not trying to impress anyone with flowery language.

[Sleepkyng]

um, no one's refuting that there is or isn't a god. I can't prove that either way.

It is true that the founders had a Christian God in mind, but they also owned slaves... so what are you saying? Slaves shouldn't have been freed?

I'm not asking for a non-christian america. Some of my best and most level headed friends are christian.

I'm asking that the public (that is political and communal) space be free of irrational arguments such as:

"no, my god is right" "no he's not, mine is"

this gets us nowhere, and it has no place in the public realm. We have a moral construct already for PUBLIC use, it is the constitution. When you are born or nationalized as an American you are signing the contract by default. If you don't like the contract, leave or petition to make changes.

This contract (and all laws created henceforth, using the constitution as a foundation and starting point) is the ONLY thing you need to abide by. If I don't believe in God, I don't have to in America. But I have no right to tell others that they are wrong to believe in God.

If Muslims and Christians want to pray in schools, then by all means, during break times, lunch and other times allocated for extra curricular activites pray and worship to your hearts content.

But if I belive in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (http://www.venganza.org/) then I don't want my kid to grow up and have the words "under God" burned into their memory.

The public realm is exactly that. If you and I are to have reasonable discourse and get anywhere in terms of communal harmony, growth etc. we must agree that somethings can not be rationalized in logical terms (religion is one of the big ones).

We could spend our entire lives arguing over the existence of God (Jebus in this case) but there isn't enough evidence either way to make one of us the all-American winner. This argument is for the private realm, between people who enjoy theological discourse, or in colleges where students who have a choice and are actively seeking to understand other religions.

It has no place in public schools where kids are still learning their ABC's.

If you want to put "One nation, under God," then you must add on to the end of that statement: Flying Spaghetti Monster (which now has 16 million followers), The nothingness of nirvana, the yin and yang, Shiva, Vishnu, Gotma, etc. etc. etc.

[sgs89]

This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.

This sounds like a flame to me. It walks like a flame. Gee, it must be a flame.

"Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God." Hmm, you want us to refute that there is no God. So, you want us to argue that God exists? No thanks, that is your job.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Personally I think taking something to court like this is stupid, especially considering you don't even have to say it. The lawyer doing this just kinda seems like the Jack Thompson of god, like he's making this his purpose as a lawyer (Honestly who sues as a parent on the be half of a child they have no custody of).

However, I do think the pledge in schools could use either revising or just be retired. I'm honestly not convinced it does anything useful anymore and like someone else may have mentioned has just sort of become a stale, empty routine at most schools. Look at it this way, kids say the pledge everyday for 12 years and you'd be shocked at the number of wrong answers or blank stares you get when you ask even college students if the USA is a republic. If they can't even pull that from the pledge something needs to be done to refresh it. Even some of the oldest traditions change when the need for it has come....

[Sleepkyng]

I'm not sure how to respond to this as it is quite unintelligible.

Here are some points, though:
* The Lemon test is not the only way the SCOTUS analyzes Establishment Clause issues. The Court is divided on the issue of what test or framework to employ.
* You have totally ignored all of the precedent I pointed to in my post, including precedent DIRECTLY ON POINT (that is to say, finding "in God we trust" to be consistent with the Constitution).
* You have failed to recognize the intent of the Framers of the First Amendment. Do you dispute that public invocation of religion, even "state-sponsored" invocations -- was commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution? Do you think the Framers intended the First Amendment to abolish all reference to religion in the public square?
* The fact that you don't like the motto on our currency -- neither do I -- does not mean it is unconstitutional. The people have chosen that motto through their elected representatives. If you don't like it, vote them out and elect people who see the issue in the same way as you do.
* As for my writing style, it is what it is. Believe me, I am not trying to impress anyone with flowery language.

I'm not disputing any of that garble. You haven't provided any real proof concerning SCOTUS or how they feel about the Lemon Test, so I will leave that aside.

Your constitutionalist argument puts the Constitution up there with the 10 commandments as some sort of holy document that can never be changed. Do I think the framers did who in the what? Not really, I don't care, either.

Discussing religion in the public square is tricky. If you want to talk about it, fine, but as soon as you introduce God or any other word like that it flexes the muscle of a religious agenda. I don't belive in God at all, why should I have to pledge my allegience to a country that does? And where does it say that I cannot be atheist?

The founders made mistakes, they were human. We have amendments.

To say, "it's legislative, vote em' out and do something about it" is the oldest trick in the book. The law is unjust to Atheist, plain and simple. I have a right to religious freedom, as in to not be religious if I don't want to be. Making me or my chlid say the pledge is a violation of that right. The law is unjust so I appeal to the courts.

The "one nation, under god" didn't even exist til 1954, so don't give me that hoo haw about historically we're christian blah blah blah - tell that to the millions of chinese, jews, indian, pakistani, japanese, etc. etc. who are Americans.

Do you think Jefferson was thinking "gee, California is going to have a huge Asian population so I should account for the 100 different types of Buddhism when I draft this puppy"

I don't think so. Those old dead guys were smart, very smart. However, times have changed, more people who are not so homogeneous as us good ole' mericans are here and are expecting equal treatment.

sorry if this isn't intelligible - I tried to find cited facts and cases in your statment, but couldn't find any, though those bullets shure wer prrty!

[mykevermin]

This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.

Weren't some of the founding fathers deists?

[Dogpatch]

This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.

Kinda funny that I have this discussion with my wife every other day. I believe that there is a God (I'm Baptist), but I do believe in separation of church and state.

Religious belief should only guide one person's opinion (ideas) and not be the base of law. This country may have started out mainly under the Christian God, but you have so many different religions among us now. For government to represent the people, it has to compromise for the good of all.

I believe if a person's religion does not harm another, I would work with them to make this world a better place. It is our jobs as Christians to spread the word, not to judge others. It's never going to be perfect. That is why we have the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state.

To me Christians take it to far when it comes to government. Just because we are the majority in this country does not mean we have to push our beliefs on people. If they want to listen I would be more than glad to tell them. If not, I would be more than glad to live with them in peace.

The whole thing is really silly. Since "under God" does not represent everyone, it should be removed. It is a song of patriotism and not faith. Why do most Christians need the feeling that the government backs them? Why do most Christians have to announce it to the whole world that they are in control? I believe in my faith, but I cast doubt on those who follow it.

[Sleepkyng]

Kinda funny that I have this discussion with my wife every other day. I believe that there is a God (I'm Baptist), but I do believe in separation of church and state.

Religious belief should only guide one person's opinion (ideas) and not be the base of law. This country may have started out mainly under the Christian God, but you have so many different religions among us now. For government to represent the people, it has to compromise for the good of all.

I believe if a person's religion does not harm another, I would work with them to make this world a better place. It is our jobs as Christians to spread the word, not to judge others. It's never going to be perfect. That is why we have the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state.

To me Christians take it to far when it comes to government. Just because we are the majority in this country does not mean we have to push our beliefs on people. If they want to listen I would be more than glad to tell them. If not, I would be more than glad to live with them in peace.

The whole thing is really silly. Since "under God" does not represent everyone, it should be removed. It is a song of patriotism and not faith. Why do most Christians need the feeling that the government backs them? Why do most Christians have to announce it to the whole world that they are in control? I believe in my faith, but I cast doubt on those who follow it.

ZOMG, A VOICE OF REASON!

HIDE! HIDE! LEST THEY FIND YOU! ;)

Great points.

Ever since the Awakening (which some belive to still be going on) there has been this sense in America that Christians are on the defensive, as if someone or faction is out to undermine christianity.

It's too bad that this insanely powerful and strong minority (among Christians, mind you) is such a presence that it does quite literally create a divide between non-religious people and religious people.

[sgs89]

I'm not disputing any of that garble. You haven't provided any real proof concerning SCOTUS or how they feel about the Lemon Test, so I will leave that aside.

Your constitutionalist argument puts the Constitution up there with the 10 commandments as some sort of holy document that can never be changed. Do I think the framers did who in the what? Not really, I don't care, either.

Discussing religion in the public square is tricky. If you want to talk about it, fine, but as soon as you introduce God or any other word like that it flexes the muscle of a religious agenda. I don't belive in God at all, why should I have to pledge my allegience to a country that does? And where does it say that I cannot be atheist?

The founders made mistakes, they were human. We have amendments.

To say, "it's legislative, vote em' out and do something about it" is the oldest trick in the book. The law is unjust to Atheist, plain and simple. I have a right to religious freedom, as in to not be religious if I don't want to be. Making me or my chlid say the pledge is a violation of that right. The law is unjust so I appeal to the courts.

The "one nation, under god" didn't even exist til 1954, so don't give me that hoo haw about historically we're christian blah blah blah - tell that to the millions of chinese, jews, indian, pakistani, japanese, etc. etc. who are Americans.

Do you think Jefferson was thinking "gee, California is going to have a huge Asian population so I should account for the 100 different types of Buddhism when I draft this puppy"

I don't think so. Those old dead guys were smart, very smart. However, times have changed, more people who are not so homogeneous as us good ole' mericans are here and are expecting equal treatment.

sorry if this isn't intelligible - I tried to find cited facts and cases in your statment, but couldn't find any, though those bullets shure wer prrty!

Here's your problem -- you don't respect the rule of law. You think that any law you don't like should be overturned. Look, we live in a democracy of sorts; the minority has to suffer the will of the majority within certain limits.

You underestimate the Framers - they DID anticipate that there would come a time when the majority may want to change the constitution. It is called the amendment process. But unless you adhere to the Framers' intent, you will have lost part of the rule of law. All of a sudden, you have judges acting as a super-legislature, something that was never intended in our system. I hope you can understand that.

[Dogpatch]

My wife feels that the pledge should not be changed. She also felt that the Confederate flag should stay atop the SC state house (another long story). I'm the exact opposite on both counts, so you can imagine my household. :)

[Sleepkyng]

Here's your problem -- you don't respect the rule of law. You think that any law you don't like should be overturned. Look, we live in a democracy of sorts; the minority has to suffer the will of the majority within certain limits.

You underestimate the Framers - they DID anticipate that there would come a time when the majority may want to change the constitution. It is called the amendment process. But unless you adhere to the Framers' intent, you will have lost part of the rule of law. All of a sudden, you have judges acting as a super-legislature, something that was never intended in our system. I hope you can understand that.

You hope I can understand that?

First off, NO, the minority does not have to suffer by the will of the majority concerning contractual rights. That is totally ridiculous - think Civil Rights movement or Women's Suffrage.

Judges don't act as super-legislature, they interpret the constitution - I HAVE CLEARLY OUTLINED THE JUDGES DECISIONS OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS - do you want me to go back further?

You have provided no evidence of the judges decisions. The Framers intent is contractual - which is very important - but that is their only intent.

The idea is that we ALL have to agree on the contract. Otherwise the laws hold no power. IF YOU don't understand that, do yourself a favor and pick up some Rawls, Locke or Kant.

With that said, Laws are then created based on the the contract (as I have previously stated), if those laws seem unjust we go back to the contract using some old guys and gals at the SCOTUS to decide. And since they have decided (don't believe me? look it up, for the love.) pretty clearly what is and what isn't unconstitutional concerning religion, the argument for "one nation, under god" simply does not hold up.

give me some concrete evidence that it does. Find in the contract (not in the preamble or the rhetoric, but in the actual contractual agreements contained in the constitution) ANYWHERE that it says that I DO NOT have the freedom to be an atheist and in the public space not feel encroached by other beliefs.

FIND IT AND SHOW ME.

sorry, it ain't there, thanks for playing.

[Sleepkyng]

My wife feels that the pledge should not be changed. She also felt that the Confederate flag should stay atop the SC state house (another long story). I'm the exact opposite on both counts, so you can imagine my household. :)

hahaha, yah, I know how that is. My last girlfriend was a good ole catholic law student.

but man, the make up sex... :hot::drool:

[sgs89]

You hope I can understand that? Judges don't act as super-legislature, they interpret the constitution - I HAVE CLEARLY OUTLINED THE JUDGES DECISIONS OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS - do you want me to go back further?

You have provided no evidence of the judges decisions. The Framers intent is contractual - which is very important - but that is their only intent.

The idea is that we ALL have to agree on the contract. Otherwise the laws hold no power. IF YOU don't understand that, do yourself a favor and pick up some Rawls, Locke or Kant.

With that said, Laws are then created based on the the contract (as I have previously stated), if those laws seem unjust we go back to the contract using some old guys and gals at the SCOTUS to decide. And since they have decided (don't believe me? look it up, for the love.) pretty clearly what is and what isn't unconstitutional concerning religion, the argument for "one nation, under god" simply does not hold up.

give me some concrete evidence that it does. Find in the contract (not in the preamble or the rhetoric, but in the actual contractual agreements contained in the constitution) ANYWHERE that it says that I DO NOT have the freedom to be an atheist and in the public space not feel encroached by other beliefs.

FIND IT AND SHOW ME.

sorry, it ain't there, thanks for playing.

Once again, you totally miss the point. The Constitution is a limitation on federal power. It is YOUR burden to point ME to the portion of the Constitution that disallows the government from acting in a specified way. You have not done that. The Establishment Clause does not say what you are implying it says.

I have pointed you to authority that has UPHELD "in God we trust." You have not pointed me to any authority that deems it unconstitutional.

If you want cites, here are some cites:

Gaylor v. U.S., 74 F.3d 214 (10th Cir. 1996) (upholding use of "in God we trust" on the currency under the Establishment Clause)

Lambeth v. Board Of Commissioners Of Davidson County, NC, 407 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2005) (upholding use of "in God we trust" on a public building under the Establishment Clause)

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayer sessions; “This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from the practice of prayer similar to that now challenged.”)

In short, you have adduced NO EVIDENCE that your position is correct. The courts have uniformly rejected the very argument that you are advancing -- that use of "in God we trust" and similar mottos is unconstitutional. Holding your breath until your face turns blue won't change that.

[camoor]

This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Hey Derwood,

Why does the dollar bill include pagan symbology, like the eye of Horus (an Egyptian god, a pagan god :shock: , symbol of illumination and enlightenment), the pyramids (built by people who weren't positively portrayed in the Christian bible), and a quote from the Vergil's Aeneid (a pagan myth) asking Jupiter to bless this undertaking (ANNUIT COEPTIS)

You'd think that a group of men trying to create a theocracy would be careful to avoid such blatant heresy.

In God We Trust was only added to the dollar bill as a reactionary move against "godless communists" at the end of the second red scare in 1957, a time best remembered for the tyranny of Joe McCarthy and the commie witch-hunts (was America thinking rationally back then, I would argue NO).

The same goes for the pledge, the God part was only added in the 1950s.

The founding fathers were comprised of deists, philosophers, and lovers of freedom.

George Washington: "The United States is in no sense founded upon
Christian Doctrine"

Thomas Jefferson: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there
are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Thomas Paine: I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church,
by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the
Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own
Church.

Thomas Jefferson: The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus,
by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be
classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of
Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and the freedom of
thought in these United States will do away with this artificial
scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of
this most venerated Reformer of human errors.

James Madison: During almost fifteen centuries the legal establishment
known as Christianity has been on trial, and what have been the fruits,
more or less, in all places? These are the fruits: pride, indolence,
ignorance, and arrogance in the clergy. Ignorance, arrogance, and
servility in the laity, and in both clergy and laity, superstition,
bigotry, and persecution.

Thomas Jefferson: I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming
feature.

John Adams: The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths,
Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in
Christianity.

Thomas Paine: Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in
religion is the worst."

Benjamin Franklin: As to Jesus of Nazareth, I think the system of Morals
and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or
is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting
Changes, and I have, with the most of the present Dissenters in England,
some doubts to his divinity.

Just to show that this view has been shared by later presidents:

Abraham Lincoln: The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my
religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of
Christian dogma.

I, Derwood, am not squirming one iota.

[Kayden]

Damn they were cool old guys...

[alonzomourning23]

This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.

This has been argued many times, if you really care that much do a search. Many of the founders were deist and god is often referred to in deist terms. It was not founded on christianity, among other things, a comparison of the 10 commandments with our laws shows that. I'm to lazy to reargue this, so I'll just cut and paste previous arguments I made:

One of the main goals was to stop church gaining real political control, and to keep politics out of church affairs, neither is being done here.

But, seriously, when the references to god are in deist form, when many of the founding fathers were deist, and when only 2 and a half (lie/perjury being the half) of commandments are illegal, it's nearly impossible to come to your conclusion......

Though deists do believe in god, and people can pray without hoping for a personal revelation and without asking god to intervene. That's your definition of prayer, not the only one. Buddhists, for example, pray even though they do not believe in a god. Christianity being so woven into life in the 18th century that, christian or not, you carried yourself and acted as a christian without even thinking about it. There is a difference between that and consciously putting christianity into the constitution. Also, if you read the constitution, nowhere does it refer to god or any such being. In the declaration of indepence there are references to a god, but god is refered to as "nature's god" and "creator", these are the ways that a deist would refer to god.

The argument that this was founded as a christian nation, or as a christian society, is revisionist history, when in reality it was merely founded by a generally christian society.

[Sleepkyng]

Once again, you totally miss the point. The Constitution is a limitation on federal power. It is YOUR burden to point ME to the portion of the Constitution that disallows the government from acting in a specified way. You have not done that. The Establishment Clause does not say what you are implying it says.

I have pointed you to authority that has UPHELD "in God we trust." You have not pointed me to any authority that deems it unconstitutional.

If you want cites, here are some cites:

Gaylor v. U.S., 74 F.3d 214 (10th Cir. 1996) (upholding use of "in God we trust" on the currency under the Establishment Clause)

Lambeth v. Board Of Commissioners Of Davidson County, NC, 407 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2005) (upholding use of "in God we trust" on a public building under the Establishment Clause)

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayer sessions; “This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from the practice of prayer similar to that now challenged.”)

In short, you have adduced NO EVIDENCE that your position is correct. The courts have uniformly rejected the very argument that you are advancing -- that use of "in God we trust" and similar mottos is unconstitutional. Holding your breath until your face turns blue won't change that.

the constitiution doesn't limit federal power, it is the only power. How do we get those branches of government without the constitution?

If you really believe what you're saying, then the contract has failed you.

[PKRipp3r]

*eats cheeto*

[Ikohn4ever]

This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.


if you knew anything about our founding fathers you would know that they were deist - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. That is why u are wrong about them including a christian god. They mention god but god does not matter with the creation of the new nation that was America

[PKRipp3r]

if you knew anything about our founding fathers you would know that they were deist - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. That is why u are wrong about them including a christian god. They mention god but god does not matter with the creation of the new nation that was America

word

http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm

[sgs89]

the constitiution doesn't limit federal power, it is the only power. How do we get those branches of government without the constitution?

If you really believe what you're saying, then the contract has failed you.

Typical non-answer I've come to expect.

The Amendments, which we have been discussing in this thread, are indeed a limitation on federal power.

You have no answer for my case cites or my argument.

Good night.

[Sleepkyng]

Typical non-answer I've come to expect.

The Amendments, which we have been discussing in this thread, are indeed a limitation on federal power.

You have no answer for my case cites or my argument.

Good night.

You cases were in no way a rebuttal to mine - but it's no biggie.

If you don't realize that the constitution is a contract that everyone in america agrees with, then you're right, we won't come to an understanding.

you think the constitution is some document that is there to be used when we need to "balance power"

that is total bullshit, and it's "constitutionalists" like yourself that devalue the idea of the constitution as a contract.

As soon as we begin to politicize the constitution we devalue it as a doctrine, as something that is at its very base the contract for a society. It isn't a bunch of clauses and legal issues that help us out when we're in a jam, IT IS THE THING THAT WE ABIDE BY IN THIS COUNTRY.

But we've taken it to be a holy document, as well as just some tool of the government. People everywhere should know that they can expect the ideals of the constitution to be held up and because people don't, they get fucked.

Roe vs. Wade should have never happened, there is no place for this private nonesense in the public light. How is it possible to decide such personal and impossible moral questions between people who fundamentally disagree?

Likewise when it comes to "God."

Personally I'm tired of politicians and smug lawyers and smart-talkers who try to pass this idea off as something that doesn't concern the constitution. As if We should just assume that god and unreasonable (ie things that simply cannot be discussed with so many opinions) topics are undoubtedly fine for public discourse.

And thanks for answering my questions, and finding a place in the constitution that refutes my fundamental right to raise children who don't believe in God.

This is all very moot considering we'll know soon enough, but it's clear to me that you're more interested in talking talking talking instead of considering the power that contractual agreements can really possess, especially this one.

But somehow I doubt you're interested in that.

"Bring it up in legislature!" - this is so absurd it's laughable. Got a problem with racial inequality? Bring it up in the legislature!

This God in school business is such a non-issue, but of course, Constitutionalists feel the need to cling to the idea that the ink on that paper is untainted gold, created by those powerful god-like men who could forsee everything and consider all possibilities beyond the limitations of experience.

But I understand, everyone likes to smell their own farts, and you seem like a connoisseur.

[sgs89]

You cases were in no way a rebuttal to mine - but it's no biggie.

If you don't realize that the constitution is a contract that everyone in america agrees with, then you're right, we won't come to an understanding.

you think the constitution is some document that is there to be used when we need to "balance power"

that is total bullshit, and it's "constitutionalists" like yourself that devalue the idea of the constitution as a contract.

As soon as we begin to politicize the constitution we devalue it as a doctrine, as something that is at its very base the contract for a society. It isn't a bunch of clauses and legal issues that help us out when we're in a jam, IT IS THE THING THAT WE ABIDE BY IN THIS COUNTRY.

But we've taken it to be a holy document, as well as just some tool of the government. People everywhere should know that they can expect the ideals of the constitution to be held up and because people don't, they get fucked.

Roe vs. Wade should have never happened, there is no place for this private nonesense in the public light. How is it possible to decide such personal and impossible moral questions between people who fundamentally disagree?

Likewise when it comes to "God."

Personally I'm tired of politicians and smug lawyers and smart-talkers who try to pass this idea off as something that doesn't concern the constitution. As if We should just assume that god and unreasonable (ie things that simply cannot be discussed with so many opinions) topics are undoubtedly fine for public discourse.

And thanks for answering my questions, and finding a place in the constitution that refutes my fundamental right to raise children who don't believe in God.

This is all very moot considering we'll know soon enough, but it's clear to me that you're more interested in talking talking talking instead of considering the power that contractual agreements can really possess, especially this one.

But somehow I doubt you're interested in that.

"Bring it up in legislature!" - this is so absurd it's laughable. Got a problem with racial inequality? Bring it up in the legislature!

This God in school business is such a non-issue, but of course, Constitutionalists feel the need to cling to the idea that the ink on that paper is untainted gold, created by those powerful god-like men who could forsee everything and consider all possibilities beyond the limitations of experience.

But I understand, everyone likes to smell their own farts, and you seem like a connoisseur.

Everytime you post, you further reveal your total lack of understanding of the issue. At the risk of giving you unwanted advice, I recommend that you stop posting on a topic you simply do not understand.

First, the Constitution -- the document upon which our nation is founded and our government derives its authority -- does not and cannot say what every individual person, yourself included, wishes it said. It is what it is. It protects the rights and privileges that it protects; it provides authority to a democratically-elected government to pass laws. Guess what? You may not agree with some of those laws. Too bad. Your recourse? That's right -- in the Legislature. Sorry you don't like the way our system works, but you are free to leave.

Second, you set up a false claim -- that you are being forced to raise your child in a religious society. The Constitution DOES protect you against that and the Courts have so recognized. But, the Courts do not agree with your position that "in God we trust" runs afoul of the Constitutional protections. You may disagree, but you are not on the Supreme Court. (And, I note, that you have continued your failure to cite a single case suggesting otherwise.)

Third, your analogy to "racial inequality" is horribly misplaced. In fact, prior to the 14th Amendment, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BRING THAT ISSUE UP IN THE LEGISLATURE. Now, though, we have the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Do you get the distinction?

Fourth, I actually AGREE with you that "in God we trust" SHOULD be removed from the currency. I also support abortion rights. But guess what? I am smart enough to see that the Constitution gives the authority to the Legislature to decide those issues. The Constitution does not protect those "rights." Your fight is with the drafters of the Constitution, not with me.

Fifth, I disagree with you that these issues are inappropriate for public discourse. That is exactly how they should be handled so that we may arrive at a more enlightened answer. You, sir, have no faith in democracy, that much is clear. Maybe you would be more comfortable living in an autocracy?

That is all.

[evanft]

Everytime you post, you further reveal your total lack of understanding of the issue. At the risk of giving you unwanted advice, I recommend that you stop posting on a topic you simply do not understand.

First, the Constitution -- the document upon which our nation is founded and our government derives its authority -- does not and cannot say what every individual person, yourself included, wishes it said. It is what it is. It protects the rights and privileges that it protects; it provides authority to a democratically-elected government to pass laws. Guess what? You may not agree with some of those laws. Too bad. Your recourse? That's right -- in the Legislature. Sorry you don't like the way our system works, but you are free to leave.

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Second, you set up a false claim -- that you are being forced to raise your child in a religious society. The Constitution DOES protect you against that and the Courts have so recognized. But, the Courts do not agree with your position that "in God we trust" runs afoul of the Constitutional protections. You may disagree, but you are not on the Supreme Court. (And, I note, that you have continued your failure to cite a single case suggesting otherwise.)

The Supreme Court can be and has been wrong. Dred Scott, Hammer v. Dragenhart, Plessy, etc.

Third, your analogy to "racial inequality" is horribly misplaced. In fact, prior to the 14th Amendment, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BRING THAT ISSUE UP IN THE LEGISLATURE. Now, though, we have the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Do you get the distinction?

The Consitution right now has the 14th amendment in it, so you're point is pretty much moot.

Fourth, I actually AGREE with you that "in God we trust" SHOULD be removed from the currency. I also support abortion rights. But guess what? I am smart enough to see that the Constitution gives the authority to the Legislature to decide those issues. The Constitution does not protect those "rights." Your fight is with the drafters of the Constitution, not with me.

Interpretation. Interpretation. Interpretation. Interpretation.

Fifth, I disagree with you that these issues are inappropriate for public discourse. That is exactly how they should be handled so that we may arrive at a more enlightened answer. You, sir, have no faith in democracy, that much is clear. Maybe you would be more comfortable living in an autocracy?

That is all.

What he was saying is that abortion, God, etc., are such deeply personal issues that people fundamentally disagree on that they should be left to people, not politicians, to decide.

[Sleepkyng]

Everytime you post, you further reveal your total lack of understanding of the issue. At the risk of giving you unwanted advice, I recommend that you stop posting on a topic you simply do not understand.

First, the Constitution -- the document upon which our nation is founded and our government derives its authority -- does not and cannot say what every individual person, yourself included, wishes it said. It is what it is. It protects the rights and privileges that it protects; it provides authority to a democratically-elected government to pass laws. Guess what? You may not agree with some of those laws. Too bad. Your recourse? That's right -- in the Legislature. Sorry you don't like the way our system works, but you are free to leave.

Second, you set up a false claim -- that you are being forced to raise your child in a religious society. The Constitution DOES protect you against that and the Courts have so recognized. But, the Courts do not agree with your position that "in God we trust" runs afoul of the Constitutional protections. You may disagree, but you are not on the Supreme Court. (And, I note, that you have continued your failure to cite a single case suggesting otherwise.)

Third, your analogy to "racial inequality" is horribly misplaced. In fact, prior to the 14th Amendment, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BRING THAT ISSUE UP IN THE LEGISLATURE. Now, though, we have the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Do you get the distinction?

Fourth, I actually AGREE with you that "in God we trust" SHOULD be removed from the currency. I also support abortion rights. But guess what? I am smart enough to see that the Constitution gives the authority to the Legislature to decide those issues. The Constitution does not protect those "rights." Your fight is with the drafters of the Constitution, not with me.

Fifth, I disagree with you that these issues are inappropriate for public discourse. That is exactly how they should be handled so that we may arrive at a more enlightened answer. You, sir, have no faith in democracy, that much is clear. Maybe you would be more comfortable living in an autocracy?

That is all.

someday, you will make a fantastic accountant or lawyer.

Hells bells and heaven's no, good fellow.

Your farts are amazing.


I for one belive in Democracy as an open consensus - not the agree to disagree bullshit that constitutionalists cling to.

WE CAN AGREE - there is a part of discourse that we can agree on or come to an agreement on - RELIGION is not one of those.

You still keep throwing the constitution in there with our three brances of government and it is not.

No one HAS to vote, no one HAS to appeal, but everyone MUST adhere to the constitution...

why? BECAUSE IT IS A CONTRACT.

A contract for individuals who want to coexist in a society.

That is its only purpose. And when coexistence is fundamentally put into question - "Do you think everyone should, in a public place, be forced to listen to drones of people saying 'Under god' ?" Then the constitution is there for us to look at and say - "uh, no, it isn't appropriate."

But please, go ahead and make this way more fucking complicated than it needs to be. That seems to be the MO for this past century.

[vietgurl]

Make Christianity the official religion of the US and problem's solved.

[sgs89]

someday, you will make a fantastic accountant or lawyer.

Hells bells and heaven's no, good fellow.

Your farts are amazing.


I for one belive in Democracy as an open consensus - not the agree to disagree bullshit that constitutionalists cling to.

WE CAN AGREE - there is a part of discourse that we can agree on or come to an agreement on - RELIGION is not one of those.

You still keep throwing the constitution in there with our three brances of government and it is not.

No one HAS to vote, no one HAS to appeal, but everyone MUST adhere to the constitution...

why? BECAUSE IT IS A CONTRACT.

A contract for individuals who want to coexist in a society.

That is its only purpose. And when coexistence is fundamentally put into question - "Do you think everyone should, in a public place, be forced to listen to drones of people saying 'Under god' ?" Then the constitution is there for us to look at and say - "uh, no, it isn't appropriate."

But please, go ahead and make this way more fucking complicated than it needs to be. That seems to be the MO for this past century.

OK, we've reached a dead end here. You don't make any sense and cannot sustain a reasoned, consistent argument. There is nothing left to say.

[Sleepkyng]

As I said, of course, you can agree to disagree.

[alonzomourning23]

Fourth, I actually AGREE with you that "in God we trust" SHOULD be removed from the currency. I also support abortion rights. But guess what? I am smart enough to see that the Constitution gives the authority to the Legislature to decide those issues. The Constitution does not protect those "rights." Your fight is with the drafters of the Constitution, not with me.


Am I the only one who saw this? Abortion rights are up to the legislature? Better tell the supreme court that one.

[Sleepkyng]

it's like spitting back at rain.

[mykevermin]

Make Christianity the official religion of the US and problem's solved.

Your sense of humor is not very becoming.

[sgs89]

Am I the only one who saw this? Abortion rights are up to the legislature? Better tell the supreme court that one.

While you are quite correct that the the SCOTUS has recognized a right to privacy that encompasses a woman's right to an abortion, they have also recognized that the Legislature can place restrictions on that right within limits. It was that legislative power to which I was referring. I regret any confusion.

As for Sleepkyng, please stick to a topic on which you have some level of understanding.

[Sleepkyng]

As for Sleepkyng, please stick to a topic on which you have some level of understanding.

have fun at prep school today, mommy wants you to grow up to be a big lawyer!

You're ready for the 21st century! Like most politicians and lawyers, you are still trying to complicate a matter that is very simple.

I don't know how else to get this through to you, and honestly, you reveal to me a large part of the intelligent people in this country who have lost sight of the contractarian philosophy. This disturbs me greatly.

It's like you forget (or perhaps your prep school never asked you to question) why the constitution was drafted in the first place, and also by whom.

It's not a long document, though longer than it should be. Why is it so short? because it is supposed to be simple, and because there are some basic things that are inalieable to all peoples - like the seperation of church and state.

Arguing Constitutional law is no longer about getting back to the constitution, it's about entrenchment and victory - that's very 18th century, don't you think?

You're right that I don't understand you, sorry, I don't get the stupid bullshit that is coming from you mouth, making things seem intangible to the average person. The constitution is for everyone, and thus everyone should and can understand it.

As soon as you get on your high horse and start talking about "What they were implying and historically who they were" it no longer becomes a contract, but a historial artifact.

I've got plenty of historical artifacts to look at in American history that tell me many things about America. None of them are my contract to being a citizen in the United States.

I'm sorry this is tough for you. I know, I go to college too, and it's much more fun to make things complicated and know tidbits (yes, I know about the Establishment Clause too! Cool, we can start a club someday) about politics, but if you lose sight of the basic underpinnings of our society it is totally useless.

Kinda like when politicians argue and bicker over stupid shit - kinda like what we're doing now.

Stupid politiking using terms and facts that have no real application to what's going on.

[sgs89]

have fun at prep school today, mommy wants you to grow up to be a big lawyer!

You're ready for the 21st century! Like most politicians and lawyers, you are still trying to complicate a matter that is very simple.

I don't know how else to get this through to you, and honestly, you reveal to me a large part of the intelligent people in this country who have lost sight of the contractarian philosophy. This disturbs me greatly.

It's like you forget (or perhaps your prep school never asked you to question) why the constitution was drafted in the first place, and also by whom.

It's not a long document, though longer than it should be. Why is it so short? because it is supposed to be simple, and because there are some basic things that are inalieable to all peoples - like the seperation of church and state.

Arguing Constitutional law is no longer about getting back to the constitution, it's about entrenchment and victory - that's very 18th century, don't you think?

You're right that I don't understand you, sorry, I don't get the stupid bullshit that is coming from you mouth, making things seem intangible to the average person. The constitution is for everyone, and thus everyone should and can understand it.

As soon as you get on your high horse and start talking about "What they were implying and historically who they were" it no longer becomes a contract, but a historial artifact.

I've got plenty of historical artifacts to look at in American history that tell me many things about America. None of them are my contract to being a citizen in the United States.

I'm sorry this is tough for you. I know, I go to college too, and it's much more fun to make things complicated and know tidbits (yes, I know about the Establishment Clause too! Cool, we can start a club someday) about politics, but if you lose sight of the basic underpinnings of our society it is totally useless.

Kinda like when politicians argue and bicker over stupid shit - kinda like what we're doing now.

Stupid politiking using terms and facts that have no real application to what's going on.

Ho-hum, more of the same boring and completely ill-informed drivel we have come to expect. You say, "I go to college too." That sounds about right -- you sound like a college student that just started attending a philosophy/social compact class. 101 at that. Please come back when you have some understanding of the Constitution, its place in American governance, and the legal theories (yes, it is a LEGAL document to be interpreted by the courts -- see Marbury v. Madison) underlying its drafting and subsequent interpretation.

[Sleepkyng]

Ho-hum, more of the same boring and completely ill-informed drivel we have come to expect. You say, "I go to college too." That sounds about right -- you sound like a college student that just started attending a philosophy/social compact class. 101 at that. Please come back when you have some understanding of the Constitution, its place in American governance, and the legal theories (yes, it is a LEGAL document to be interpreted by the courts -- see Marbury v. Madison) underlying its drafting and subsequent interpretation.

Haha, if only you knew, fella.

Who is this "we" you refer to?

Fight for that understanding! Let everyone (perhaps the "we?") know that you've got it.

And let's take a look at Marbury vs. Madison for a second (did you do that before you threw that out there? Or were you hoping that your hoity toity bull shit would be the end all be all of this conversation?)

What does Chief Justice Mashall have to say?

"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."

Now, what the fuck have I been saying for the past few posts?

Lesse, what else does he say?

"The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy."

"The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States."
What were you saying about this not having a place in the Supreme Court?

And what does Chief Justice Marshall say about the constitution and to whom it serves and in what way?

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments."


Damn, it's like he took the words right out of my mouth! Uncanny!


Here's something worth noting:


"So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."


And how does he finish his ruling? To what does he give power? The idea of the contract and how the contract serves the country:


"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

Your inability to consider the big picture is boring, and unfortunately, quite on track with the times.

You're going to be a big success, I'm sure of it.

[sgs89]

You are truly bizarre. Nothing you quoted by Chief Justice Marshall supports your meandering ruminations. Nothing. I think your biggest problem is that you just can't clearly articulate the various thoughts that are clanging around your "brain."

Your hint that you are a real intellectual giant ("Haha, if only you knew, fella") would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. I mean, no one reading your posts in this thread could believe anything but that you are a desperate man trying to sound intelligent but failing due to his inherent limitations and lack of a knowledge base. You'd best get back to your philosophy 101 at the local community college.

[Sleepkyng]

Um, I'm not hinting at anything.

Everything you've said has just been opinion - you cited sources and cases but made no real explanation. You try to intimidate through your "indeeds" and bandwagon approaches... that's sad.

Who is this group of people you keep refering to? I don't need to hide behind that at all.

My argument is simple - A person felt their rights were violated by having to be in a public space hearing "Under god" every day, they are not happy with it and it deserves to be in court. In court, the ruling should be simple, as not everyone believes in god. The court serves the contract which is the constitution. The constitution serves the people.

It's pretty fucking simple.

[sgs89]

Um, I'm not hinting at anything.

Everything you've said has just been opinion - you cited sources and cases but made no real explanation. You try to intimidate through your "indeeds" and bandwagon approaches... that's sad.

Who is this group of people you keep refering to? I don't need to hide behind that at all.

My argument is simple - A person felt their rights were violated by having to be in a public space hearing "Under god" every day, they are not happy with it and it deserves to be in court. In court, the ruling should be simple, as not everyone believes in god. The court serves the contract which is the constitution. The constitution serves the people.

It's pretty fucking simple.

Thank you for attempting to articulate clearly your position for the first time. Nevertheless, you are still wrong. The "contract" as you call it -- the Constitution -- just does not say what you are implying it says. It is really that simple. As interpreted by the courts (a bedrock principle since Marbury v. Madison), the Constitution's Establishment Clause does not prohibit such invocations of religion.

You seem to be saying that the "contract" is what anyone says it is. That is wrong. We live in a society governed, at its root, by the Constitution which permits the majority to pass laws within certain limitations, even laws that seem repugnant to some people. While the Constitution does, indeed, serve the people, it does not and cannot prohibit the enactment of any law that might be offensive to certain people.

One other thing to keep in mind: the Constitution nowhere uses the language "separation of church and state" nor does it proscribe all governmental invocation of religion. Your "contract" -- my Constitution -- simply does not say that nor, the evidence suggests, was it intended to act in precisely that way. We can change that, though, by lobbying for an amendment.

[Sleepkyng]

You are right, the constitution has no inclusion speaking of the seperation of church and state - because it is the separation of church and state. But more importantly, it is the separation of the private and the public. The amendments articulate this idea perfectly.

Your contract, my constitution is the agreement of what is public and what is private. It clearly defines what we can discuss as a collection of people in the public spectrum on the grounds of logical and rational discourse. The whole God issue is not an issue, it has no place in the discussion, and so, since it has become a public issue, needs to go to the supreme court where they need to say "this has no place in the public spectrum, end of story."

[camoor]

One other thing to keep in mind: the Constitution nowhere uses the language "separation of church and state" nor does it proscribe all governmental invocation of religion. Your "contract" -- my Constitution -- simply does not say that nor, the evidence suggests, was it intended to act in precisely that way. We can change that, though, by lobbying for an amendment.

A little bit OT, but I just wish the world could work like this:

As for science versus religion, I am issuing a restraining order. Science must remain 500 yards away from religion at all times.

- Judge Schneider, "The Simpsons"

:lol:

[sgs89]

You are right, the constitution has no inclusion speaking of the seperation of church and state - because it is the separation of church and state. But more importantly, it is the separation of the private and the public. The amendments articulate this idea perfectly.

Your contract, my constitution is the agreement of what is public and what is private. It clearly defines what we can discuss as a collection of people in the public spectrum on the grounds of logical and rational discourse. The whole God issue is not an issue, it has no place in the discussion, and so, since it has become a public issue, needs to go to the supreme court where they need to say "this has no place in the public spectrum, end of story."

I spelled separation correctly so I'm not sure what your first point is, although I've come to expect that.

"The amendments articulate this idea perfectly." Really? Where?

I'm sure the public eagerly waits for Sleepkyng's discourse on constitutional theory -- a theory only he adheres to and that only he can see support for.

[Sleepkyng]

Sorry, I wasn't intending to critique the spelling, but rather trying to point out that the idea of separation of church and state (again, more importantly Private and Public) is embodied in the whole of the constitution and is then articulated by the amendments.

The Bill of Rights is the the clear distinction of Public and Private - I don't know how to articulate it more than it is. I think they did a fairly decent job.

You still haven't remarked on my initial argument in any meaningful way. Please define the public and private sector in your all knowing eyes so that I may finally understand it. I thought it was clear, but after wading through your confusing argument I'm confused once again. I need your clarity, oh seer of seers.

[Kayden]

Ho-hum, more of the same boring and completely ill-informed drivel we have come to expect. You say, "I go to college too." That sounds about right -- you sound like a college student that just started attending a philosophy/social compact class. 101 at that. Please come back when you have some understanding of the Constitution, its place in American governance, and the legal theories (yes, it is a LEGAL document to be interpreted by the courts -- see Marbury v. Madison) underlying its drafting and subsequent interpretation.

Dude, I haven't even been paying much attention to this thread, but every one of your posts makes you look like a 'high brow' ass that is just trying to make yourself look intelligent. You sound more like PAD with every post, and that is anything but good.

[sgs89]

Dude, I haven't even been paying much attention to this thread, but every one of your posts makes you look like a 'high brow' ass that is just trying to make yourself look intelligent. You sound more like PAD with every post, and that is anything but good.

Your opinion means nothing to me, but thanks for sharing. If you aren't interested in reading posts about legal theory than stop reading my posts. I never asked you to read them.

[sgs89]

Sorry, I wasn't intending to critique the spelling, but rather trying to point out that the idea of separation of church and state (again, more importantly Private and Public) is embodied in the whole of the constitution and is then articulated by the amendments.

The Bill of Rights is the the clear distinction of Public and Private - I don't know how to articulate it more than it is. I think they did a fairly decent job.

You still haven't remarked on my initial argument in any meaningful way. Please define the public and private sector in your all knowing eyes so that I may finally understand it. I thought it was clear, but after wading through your confusing argument I'm confused once again. I need your clarity, oh seer of seers.

Well, I guess we are at an end point -- your view that the Bill of Rights prevents any legislation on what you deem to be "private" issues is unique and, I would say, not supported by the language of the amendments.

That being said, I think I now understand the point you are attempting to make. I, the Framers, the Courts, legal scholars, and the Congress simply disagree with you, that's all.

[Kayden]

Your opinion means nothing to me, but thanks for sharing. If you aren't interested in reading posts about legal theory than stop reading my posts. I never asked you to read them.

:lol: Seeking your opinion on legal theory is akin to reading the bible to find answers about evolution.

This is the best example I can think of for ROe vs Wade! Ipso factum e plurabis unum!

(See, babling random shit doesn't make you sound smart.... indeed...)

[sgs89]

:lol: Seeking your opinion on legal theory is akin to reading the bible to find answers about evolution.

That's a good one. I am still laughing. Very funny. No, really, it was funny.

You were born in 1984, so I don't expect you to be an expert on much of anything beyond lighting up your next "doobie." But, please, limit your comments to issues on which you have at least a vague semblance of understanding.

[alonzomourning23]

You are truly bizarre. Nothing you quoted by Chief Justice Marshall supports your meandering ruminations. Nothing. I think your biggest problem is that you just can't clearly articulate the various thoughts that are clanging around your "brain."

Your hint that you are a real intellectual giant ("Haha, if only you knew, fella") would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. I mean, no one reading your posts in this thread could believe anything but that you are a desperate man trying to sound intelligent but failing due to his inherent limitations and lack of a knowledge base. You'd best get back to your philosophy 101 at the local community college.

Just wondering, you're not "chunk" are you? You argue somewhat like him.

[Kayden]

That's a good one. I am still laughing. Very funny. No, really, it was funny.

You were born in 1984, so I don't expect you to be an expert on much of anything beyond lighting up your next "doobie." But, please, limit your comments to issues on which you have at least a vague semblance of understanding.

I really don't see how you trying to bring my knowledge of anything into question makes you seem any more credible a source. You're a Republican, aren't you?

[Cheese]

That's a good one. I am still laughing. Very funny. No, really, it was funny.

You were born in 1984, so I don't expect you to be an expert on much of anything beyond lighting up your next "doobie." But, please, limit your comments to issues on which you have at least a vague semblance of understanding.


I have a vague semblance of understanding you're an asshole. Good luck with that.

[sgs89]

I really don't see how you trying to bring my knowledge of anything into question makes you seem any more credible a source. You're a Republican, aren't you?

No, actually I'm not.

[sgs89]

Just wondering, you're not "chunk" are you? You argue somewhat like him.

Chunk? No, of that I can assure you.

[sgs89]

I have a vague semblance of understanding you're an asshole. Good luck with that.

When we want the village idiot to opine, we will ask you. Until then, keep your mouth shut.

[PKRipp3r]

When we want the village idiot to opine, we will ask you. Until then, keep your mouth shut.


he's just talkin' `bout how you're an asshole....

[Sleepkyng]

Well, I guess we are at an end point -- your view that the Bill of Rights prevents any legislation on what you deem to be "private" issues is unique and, I would say, not supported by the language of the amendments.

That being said, I think I now understand the point you are attempting to make. I, the Framers, the Courts, legal scholars, and the Congress simply disagree with you, that's all.

again, I don't see any evidence that the "Framers", the courts, the legal scholars or congress agrees with you.

you keep trying to act like you've got a bunch of people on your side, like I said, I don't need that, but apparently everyone else thinks you're a chump.

oops, I didn't mean to take your stance and support claims the way you do.

[sgs89]

again, I don't see any evidence that the "Framers", the courts, the legal scholars or congress agrees with you.

you keep trying to act like you've got a bunch of people on your side, like I said, I don't need that, but apparently everyone else thinks you're a chump.

oops, I didn't mean to take your stance and support claims the way you do.

This is pretty frustrating, but for the last time, there is no support for your basic proposition: that the Bill of Rights prevents any legislation on what you deem to be "private" issues.

Until you can point to that support, you are just pissing into the wind.

[Sleepkyng]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are meant to define the public and private sector.

The Constitution has no mention of religious beliefs based on the fact that there is no need for such discussion in the public sector.
Here's an example:
{The Bill of Rights contains Amendments that give inalieable freedoms to individuals:
Article [I.] (See Note 13)

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. }

That legislation has allowed public schools to include a statment "One nation, Under God" which was created in a time of anti-communist and anti-secular beliefs in the 1950s, which violates the basic right of non-believers who do not belive that the nation is under god, in daily use. This private matter of religion is not appropriate for a public place and because legislation has violated this basic rule, the matter should be decided on by the interpreters of the Constitution - your SCOTUS, my Supreme Court.

[sgs89]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are meant to define the public and private sector.

The Constitution has no mention of religious beliefs based on the fact that there is no need for such discussion in the public sector.
Here's an example:
{The Bill of Rights contains Amendments that give inalieable freedoms to individuals:
Article [I.] (See Note 13)

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. }

That legislation has allowed public schools to include a statment "One nation, Under God" which was created in a time of anti-communist and anti-secular beliefs in the 1950s, which violates the basic right of non-believers who do not belive that the nation is under god, in daily use. This private matter of religion is not appropriate for a public place and because legislation has violated this basic rule, the matter should be decided on by the interpreters of the Constitution - your SCOTUS, my Supreme Court.

OK, but this is exactly my point. The First Amendment does not carry the weight you assume it does. The "matter" (or at least very similar questions) HAS been "decided on" by the SCOTUS (and the exact issue by federal appellate courts) and they have uniformly ruled against your position. See my earlier case cites. I'm sorry that they don't agree with your interpretation; maybe you are right and they are all wrong.

[Sleepkyng]

I'm still unclear as to why, then is this case headed to the Supreme Court?

[Sleepkyng]

Also, yes, I think they're wrong if that's the way it has been decided.

I also disagreed with Plessy vs. Ferguson and to a lesser extent Brown v. Board of Education.

[sgs89]

Also, yes, I think they're wrong if that's the way it has been decided.

I also disagreed with Plessy vs. Ferguson and to a lesser extent Brown v. Board of Education.

You're certainly free to think the Supreme Court is wrong. But, you must admit, they have A LITTLE more legal training than you do. (Then again, maybe sleepkyng is actually Prof. Larry Tribe in disguise.)

[Sleepkyng]

Go ahead and disregard the other post I put up about how this case is going to the supreme court.

So Plessy v. Ferguson had plenty of legally trained people on the case.

So did the 2000 election.

You sure do like to say my screen name a lot. And of course, like you, I claim to be a professor, especially one in disguise.

You keep saying the books are on your side, but again, haven't shown me anywhere that you're right.

Lot's of heat coming from you, but very little light.

[sgs89]

Go ahead and disregard the other post I put up about how this case is going to the supreme court.

So Plessy v. Ferguson had plenty of legally trained people on the case.

So did the 2000 election.

You sure do like to say my screen name a lot. And of course, like you, I claim to be a professor, especially one in disguise.

You keep saying the books are on your side, but again, haven't shown me anywhere that you're right.

Lot's of heat coming from you, but very little light.

This is getting really tedious. I don't know why I keep taking the bait of someone as irrational as you.

What case is going to the Supreme Court? "In God we trust"? "Under God"? What on earth are you talking about?

Books are on my side? Books? When did I say that? And what on earth do you mean?

You are a strange little man.

[Sleepkyng]

the case at the beginning of this thread, the one that started the topic, the one that everyone is discussing.

and as to the "little man" comment - I see no one defending your character or conduct in this thread.

if I am a little man in the eyes of others, what, then are you?

[sgs89]

the case at the beginning of this thread, the one that started the topic, the one that everyone is discussing.

and as to the "little man" comment - I see no one defending your character or conduct in this thread.

if I am a little man in the eyes of others, what, then are you?

The "under God" case already went to the SCOTUS once. It was vacated on the ground that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the case. The Court, therefore, did not rule on the merits of the case.

The new case -- featuring the same plaintiff now acting as an attorney for three unnamed parents and their children -- was just decided in the district court. The district court judge found that he was bound by the Ninth Circuit precedent finding the phrase unconstitutional in the context of the Pledge of Allegiance. The case will now be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As for the Supreme Court, no one can say whether they will take the case again once it is decided by the Ninth Circuit. Supreme Court review is discretionary as you may know.

You didn't answer my query about the "books" being on my side. Huh?

As for "the eyes of others," who gives a shit? If it makes you feel better that a bunch of nobodies on a message board side with you with no understanding of the issue, so be it. It matters not a bit to me.

[PKRipp3r]

http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~kirrer/THREAD.jpg

[Kayden]

he's just talkin' `bout how you're an asshole....

I can dig it.

[sgs89]

http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~kirrer/THREAD.jpg

Agreed.

[Sleepkyng]

The "under God" case already went to the SCOTUS once. It was vacated on the ground that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the case. The Court, therefore, did not rule on the merits of the case.

The new case -- featuring the same plaintiff now acting as an attorney for three unnamed parents and their children -- was just decided in the district court. The district court judge found that he was bound by the Ninth Circuit precedent finding the phrase unconstitutional in the context of the Pledge of Allegiance. The case will now be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As for the Supreme Court, no one can say whether they will take the case again once it is decided by the Ninth Circuit. Supreme Court review is discretionary as you may know.

You didn't answer my query about the "books" being on my side. Huh?

As for "the eyes of others," who gives a shit? If it makes you feel better that a bunch of nobodies on a message board side with you with no understanding of the issue, so be it. It matters not a bit to me.

Hey pal, how does this sound: you win, good job. I don't feel like you've presented anything really palpable refuting my argument, and I doubt I will. Perhaps it's because your argument is so laced with pontificating and snobbery that I am unable to take it seriously, or maybe it is the loose collection of Constitutionalist dogma that I'm tired of hearing over and over again from Georgetown grads. Either way, YOU ARE A WINNER!

So these nobodies (who are members of the forum you belong to), obviously mean enough to you so that you feel obliged to continue this thread, think you're an asshole. Sorry about that, though I'm sure your true self would have shown through sooner or later. Judging by your disdain for others, probably sooner.


And you've had a lot of weak cheap shots, that's not my style, but I'm cool with it.

I'll just be direct.

You write like a chump, argue like a chump and act like a chump. I don't think you're an asshole, just someone who's got nothing better to do on a friday night.

You're someone with something to prove, which honestly makes you a nobody.

as for me, I'm headin out.

take care and good luck with that complex.

[sgs89]

Hey pal, how does this sound: you win, good job. I don't feel like you've presented anything really palpable refuting my argument, and I doubt I will. Perhaps it's because your argument is so laced with pontificating and snobbery that I am unable to take it seriously, or maybe it is the loose collection of Constitutionalist dogma that I'm tired of hearing over and over again from Georgetown grads. Either way, YOU ARE A WINNER!

So these nobodies (who are members of the forum you belong to), obviously mean enough to you so that you feel obliged to continue this thread, think you're an asshole. Sorry about that, though I'm sure your true self would have shown through sooner or later. Judging by your disdain for others, probably sooner.


And you've had a lot of weak cheap shots, that's not my style, but I'm cool with it.

I'll just be direct.

You write like a chump, argue like a chump and act like a chump. I don't think you're an asshole, just someone who's got nothing better to do on a friday night.

You're someone with something to prove, which honestly makes you a nobody.

as for me, I'm headin out.

take care and good luck with that complex.

Your smugness is pathetic given your demonstrated stupidity.

Thanks for conceding defeat. I would have hated to break my perfect record.

Have fun at that anime convention tonight.

Oh, and Georgetown? Come on, I turned them down for the big-time.

[mykevermin]

Your smugness is pathetic given your demonstrated stupidity.

Thanks for conceding defeat. I would have hated to break my perfect record.

Have fun at that anime convention tonight.

Oh, and Georgetown? Come on, I turned them down for the big-time.

so, tell us about yourself, then, sweetheart.

I'm knee deep in Jameson, and have been enjoying this thread all fuckin' day. So, captain fancy-pants, who are you and what credentials do you bring to the table? Dispose of the ambiguities, if it please you.

[Sleepkyng]

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, case no. 02-1624.

please read the final ruling. please explain to me the the ruling and the outcome.

[Kayden]

Man, atleast PAD quits after you verbally kick the shit out of his limp minded arguements.

"Ah hah! You provide only 'proof' that cannot be proven or disproven by me! You're cheating and that makes you a sissy lefty!"

"Well, atleast we provided tangible proof instead of blanket statements and extreme right 'news' sources with no real credibility."

".... ... Oh my God, Look over there, its a tree hugging party!" *runs like a little girl*

Now, SuperGaySimpleton, take a que from your predecessor and start running after your lingual bitchslapping.

[sgs89]

Man, atleast PAD quits after you verbally kick the shit out of his limp minded arguements.

"Ah hah! You provide only 'proof' that cannot be proven or disproven by me! You're cheating and that makes you a sissy lefty!"

"Well, atleast we provided tangible proof instead of blanket statements and extreme right 'news' sources with no real credibility."

".... ... Oh my God, Look over there, its a tree hugging party!" *runs like a little girl*

Now, SuperGaySimpleton, take a que from your predecessor and start running after your lingual bitchslapping.

If any of that applied to anything that I've said in this thread, you might have a point. It does not so you just made a complete ass out of yourself. Good work.

I am not a republican. I am not a Bush supporter. I am not a "liberal basher." I understand you see the world in very simple terms. That is all you are capable of. But please don't clutter up this thread with dense and ill-informed accusations that prove you haven't even read the arguments.

Now go back to watching your anime cartoons and leave the real discussion to the grown-ups.

[sgs89]

so, tell us about yourself, then, sweetheart.

I'm knee deep in Jameson, and have been enjoying this thread all fuckin' day. So, captain fancy-pants, who are you and what credentials do you bring to the table? Dispose of the ambiguities, if it please you.

I feel no need to trumpet my credentials on a video game message board. If you think I am an uneducated rube, so be it. If you think I am a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, so be it. That is your choice.

[sgs89]

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, case no. 02-1624.

please read the final ruling. please explain to me the the ruling and the outcome.

I have already explained that to you. Man, you continually amaze me with your pig-headishness. You just don't get it, do you? Can you not read english? Is that the problem?

In an opinion by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court REVERSED the Ninth Circuit's decision finding the Pledge unconstitutional. The Court did so on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case (and, yes, I know that you don't understand what that means):

"In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff's claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdow's right to communicate with his child--which both California law and the First Amendment recognize--and his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court."

Oh, and by the way, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas concurred in the judgment but indicated they would have resolved the constitutional issue against the plaintiff:

"On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

[Sleepkyng]

you just listed the verdict - that the plantiff's current position was not one where they could properly judge the case due to the family situation.

then, three of the supreme court justices said they could have resolved it as a constituional issue BUT DID NOT in the court and in the ruling.

Three out of nine is not a consensus or a final decision on the matter.

please contine with your blatherings.

[sgs89]

you just listed the verdict - that the plantiff's current position was not one where they could properly judge the case due to the family situation.

then, three of the supreme court justices said they could have resolved it as a constituional issue BUT DID NOT in the court and in the ruling.

Three out of nine is not a consensus or a final decision on the matter.

please contine with your blatherings.

First, it is not a "verdict." In fact, there was never a verdict. When the Supreme Court decides a case, it is called a "decision."

I answered your question -- to explain the ruling of the case. You then attacked me. I'm not sure what you want here, but, once again, you are acting out in a very irrational manner.

Now that you understand the holding of the case, what was the point you were trying to make? Or have you forgotten already?