Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional...

[Dralix]

Originally posted by starlifter

Sorry Dralix, you speak with authoritative factual inexactitude. The records exist, to this very day, of the proceedings. The Creator refers to God, not just "anything".

I will allow you the honor of reearching this yourself. I've already done that in person, in Philadelphia .

You mean to tell me that there is documentation in Philadelphia that explains exactly what the founding fathers meant? Then why are we (and the courts) always "interpreting" the words?

Originally posted by starlifter


It appears you need to revise your statement.

Yep, you're right. A slight typo on my part, which I will correct. It should have read "You have now proved to me ..." Now does my statement make more sense? The words you seem to be missing, in regards to these self-evident truths, are "we hold" as in "we believe" or "we are in the opinion that." In other words, the fouding fathers may have believed that these truths are self-evident, but that does not make it fact.

 

[MrPresident]

I have just heard about this decision and all I can say is that Americans are damn lucky to live in such a great country. I do believe in God but I also believe strongly in the separation of church and state. Since I live in a country where our nation not only supports God but also the monarchy I am glad that there is a place in the world that can see that such a situation is wrong. Not only that these people were brave enough to act. I only hope that one day Britain can join the ranks of such a country, to one day really stand shoulder to shoulder.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident
I have just heard about this decision and all I can say is that Americans are damn lucky to live in such a great country. I do believe in God but I also believe strongly in the separation of church and state. Since I live in a country where our nation not only supports God but also the monarchy I am glad that there is a place in the world that can see that such a situation is wrong. Not only that these people were brave enough to act. I only hope that one day Britain can join the ranks of such a country, to one day really stand shoulder to shoulder.

Not everyone sees it by a long shot though. Most (Not here but in general) seem to just react with a knee-jerk, "This is an attack on God" without thinking through the whole issue.

It actually highlights why I like discussion boards like this. Most people on here at the very least have to read and confront someone else's logic that disagrees with their own. Starlifter is a perfect example. We disagree, but at the very least both of us have had to read and consider the other side of the arguement. I can only speak for myself, but it helps me to clarify my opinions and consider them instead of just going with a gut reaction. People 'on the street' don't generally have this opportunity because topics such as this are taboo. It is too dangerous to discuss this around the water-cooler.

to all participating in this debate and thinking through their position in light of another's opposition.

 

[ChrTh]

Originally posted by starlifter

Actually, not. If you read the documentation of the disagreements and debates fo the time about these seemingly small and insignificant phrases, you realize that every word and phrase was thoroughly thought out. It was not a "rubber stamp" like you might expect on Capital Hill today. They knew. And they knew the message they were sending by signing it.

I hate to do this, but PPOR. Since 'Year of Our Lord' appears innumerable times throughout history, unless you can demonstrate an actual discussion on this particular usage, I have to ignore that argument.

 

[Franklyn]

BC-Pledge of Allegiance, 5th Ld, a0667,0203

URGENT

Court puts Pledge of Allegiance ruling on hold

Eds: UPDATES with judge putting his ruling on hold.

By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) … A day after he shocked the nation by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a federal appeals court judge put his ruling on hold Thursday.

Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the 2-1 opinion that said the phrase ``under God'' violates the separation of church and state, stayed his ruling until other members of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decide whether to change course.

The appeals court can rehear the case with the same three judges, or an 11-judge panel.

Goodwin's action Thursday has no immediate impact, since the ruling already was on hold by court rules for 45 days to allow for any challenges.

Vikram Amar, a Hastings College of the Law scholar who closely follows the appeals court, said the latest ruling means that, for now, Wednesday's opinion finding the pledge unconstitutional ``has no legal force or effect.''

``They're acknowledging the likelihood that the whole 9th Circuit may take a look at this,'' Amar said.
MORE

AP-ES-06-27-02 1630EDT

 

[joespaniel]

I agree that "God" has no place in the Pledge, in courtrooms or on currency for that matter.

Religion is a personal thing, and our whole American way of life is based on freedom from that:

Other peoples beliefs. Intangible concepts and behavioral systems.

However, I wouldnt push the point anymore than it already has been. The country may not be quite ready for this at the present time.

So what if the dollar in my pocket says "God" on it. Big deal. Im still smart enough to make up my own mind concerning faith/moral/ethic questions for myself.

If they put sublimnal brain-wave micro-transmitters in there, well, that would be going too far.

 

[TedG]

Originally posted by joespaniel
So what if the dollar in my pocket says "God" on it. Big deal. Im still smart enough to make up my own mind concerning faith/moral/ethic questions for myself.

If they put sublimnal brain-wave micro-transmitters in there, well, that would be going too far.

Exactly! I think that's how most Americans feel about this issue. It's probably just a smaller group of crybabies that actually start these kind of debates.

 

[ozscott75]

Originally posted by starlifter


The context of the word "our" refers to the nation of America. As I have repeatedly stated, individuals are free to choose and practice their own religion.

If Individuals are truly free to choose and practice their own religion, yet still remain loyal citizens of the US, then the pledge of allegiance should remain free of all references to any religion or faith.

Originally posted by starlifter

The nation (our Nation, since you count yourself as part of it) is one nation, under God. From day one until this very moment.

It has been said before, but, making a statement repeatedly does not make it true. When those documents are read in the context of the period, the idea of god is evident. If these quasi-religious ramblings are excised, the documents retain their meaning and more suitably reflect current beliefs.

Originally posted by starlifter

Remember, in the context of a nation, an individual exception does not set the rule. That is, when we say "Americans are free" or "our nation, one nation, is free", we are not referring to the exceptions, like incarcerated felons, or those being held hostage be a criminal at some given moment.

In the context of a nation, the ideal of freedom is as far removed from incarceration as is possible, the ideal of freedom within this context is one of freedom to live your life as you see fit, whilst respecting the laws of the land.

 

[cegman]

I think this is stupid how many of you heard about the girl who lost had her valintines taken away because they were Christian? This is kind of like that look the way things are going God will be a curse in a few decades that if you even mention him you will get suspended. Look is that fair it is freedom of Religon take it out if you want but there is no need too. How many 5th graders would like to suddenly not say under God and mess the whole thing up. I don't know what I am getting at it is tired I am saying leave it alone. When the United States was created many of the founding fathers were Christians but they didn't like being like the England so there would be no problems. sorry if you don't understand this I will mabye fix it later but I am tired good night

 

[starlifter]

Graedius,

I hesitate to reply to your post because I do not know your education level or background, and you might take it as personal criticism if I reply to it. But since you wrote it, said you were well read in history, had copies of the Constitution, etc., then I will reply.

quote:Originally posted by starlifter
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
(In Congress, July 4, 1776)
....
This is the first of a multi-part history lesson, both for Americans and for non-Americans.
------------------------
by Graedius, to Starlifter: Here is the start of your history lesson. The Decleration of Independance was not signed in Congress on July 4th.
And the Decleration of Independance is not and has never been a formal legal document. It was a statement of principles a decade before our government came into existence. Its historically relevant but legally irrelevant.

I'm afraid you are quite wrong. Have you ever actually read the document, or even seen a picture of it? Do you know when it was written and under what circumstances? If you did, you would surely see how absurd your statements are....

1. Here is a photo. Source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

2. As you now doubtless must realize, you were contradicting the document itself (not me) and recorded history. In fact, the reason July 4th is Independence Day is because that is the day we formalized, legally and permanantly, the Declaration of Independence and became an Independent nation. If you have data contradicting this, please contact the United States of America, Department of Archives. You can start here. .

3. You said, " A statement of principle before our gov't came into existance." BTW, of curiosity, where do you attend (or did you attend) school? I hope they did not teach you that... maybe its your memory bad and you just don't check before you post. LOL, What do you think July 4th, 1776 means? The US government come into formal existance in a new Nation at that moment.

4. You said: " Its historically relevant but legally irrelevant." Your wild-eyed statements just get more absurd! Legally irrelevant??!? It was simply the single most legal and relevant act in US history, bar none! It formed the basis for our country, and was instrumental in gaining America international recognition of our new nation. The French ultimately became our allies, and many other nations recognized us (Britan however, did not ).

I have all three of them within arms reach of my computer for quick back references.
Like double checking to make sure the Constitution never once mentions God, nations under God, the existence of God; yet the only time religion is mentioned is in the explicit limiting of its influence on public life.

If you have all 3 in arm's reach, then why not reach over and read them before you post and embarrass youself?

Do you know what the Constitution is and what it's purpose is in American Government? From your strange and inaccurate replies, you do not.


The United States Constitution is a body of fundamental law, setting out the basic principles, structures,
processes, and functions of a government and placing limits upon it's actions. Its very nature is not to talk about God and the basis of the country's formation.

There are Six Basic Principles upon which the Constitution is built:

1. Popular Sovereignty
2. Limited Government
3. Separation of Powers
4. Checks and Balances
5. Judicial Review
6. Federalism

Would you like a definition of any of the above?

PS, Do you know when the Constitution was ratified? America had a functioning government and even army in the interveneing years form 1776 to 17xx (you can state the date, as a simple historical challenge).

You can't speak for me. No, I don't know it. I have spent an obscene amount of time studying that period of history, American history in general, and theories of American political governance. I'm absolutely convinced that I have NO idea what you base your belief on.

Given you demonstrated mastery of nothing you have posted so far, it might be better if you define your "an obscene amount of time"... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt . But I honestly can't explain your almost complete misunderstanding of historical facts and records of our founding era. Your own private version of history does not jive with recorded reality. That is why you are so confused, and have no idea what I or the National Archives are talking about .

First of all, if the entire nation is under God, why did they wait until the second paragraph to mention it. Wouldn't it start out somethign like "Being a nation under God..."?

You can find that answer in a Public Library or in the National Archives. Let me understand you.... you are asking me to reword the writings of Thomas Jefferson, et.al.? LOL!!! Not a chance... he wrote it brilliantly and I have no desire to work on alternate versions. But you can look at come of his drafts, which still exist.

Those that opposed slavery signed too. I would have signed it as well.

What is your point? That you would vote for slavery too?

Everyone signed... it was unanimous.

Even in 1954, Congress would still occassionaly overstep their bounds. They still do it today... that is why there is a need for checks & balances.

Correct. That is part of the reason we have a Constitution... the Supreme Court can render null and void any law or legislation that is uncnstitutional. That's what we're taking about in this thread.

So everyone who uses A.D. is acknowledging the existence of God?
It'd be tough to communicate the span of history in your world.

In short, no... Some revisionists have other ideas. Most people do not know what it stands for, and the term is used in secular context most of the time. But some historical revisionists are trying to remove the terms "AD" and "BC" from books, including some textbooks. For example, do you know the term B.C.E.? It is "Before the Common Era" (substitute for BC).

No, using AD does not commit one to a belief in God, and moreover, does not infringe on a person's basic rights.

And you have yet to point to the part of the Constitution that pertains to religion in public life, or that depicts the nation under God.
And I don't like the fact that you group all the Founding Fathers into one, quote happy, session. They didn't agree on everything,

Unfortunately, you seem to have a total misunderstanding of what the Constitution is, and what it is used for. See my earlier explanation. Have you ever Article 6, or the First Amendment?

The session when they approved the Constitution was, in fact, documented to be "happy". There a was strife on a few issues whilse hammering out the details. It is a truism that the Founding Fathers did not agree on everything; the complete era of history is well documented.

I doubt the Founding Fathers would have been a big fan of any pledges of allegiance. There are Constitutional provisions against it, such as Article 6 of the Constitution.

Do you know what it says? Hre it is:

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution,
shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything
in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state
legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several
states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So exactly what is your question about it? Feel free to point out where this Article 6 forbids a Pledge of Allegiance..

Do you think it would be Unconstitutional for a Congressman to have to recite the pledge in order to take office?

Have you been following this thread or did you just accidently post here? Absolutely nothing has been talked about making the Pledge an "oath to assume office." Your whole statement is non-sequitor, LOL....




Well, I'm really not sure why you posted such a grossly inacurate post, despite claiming reading an "obscene" amount.

God Bless America... one nation, under God! Long may she live!

 

[starlifter]

Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the 2-1 opinion that said the phrase ``under God'' violates the separation of church and state, stayed his ruling until other members of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decide whether to change course.

Thanks for posting that! It was expected to happen, and that is exactly what I was talking about time and time and time and time again in earlier posts....

But to be fair, the way the Federal District Courts and Supreme Court works is rather complicated, and it is often not easy to realize what it means.

When this is heard by the entire 9th District Court, I doubt they will find 5 judicial activists.... but I do not know the biographies. It is a huge step from 2 to 5, at the DC level . The 9th DC will probably just reverse themselves (as their job, precedent, law, and Supreme Court Decisions require them to do). If they don't, they better have a much better arguement for their 2-1 decision than they have made public so far. And other DC's and the SC itself know it....

BTW, as always, as long as the case is "alive", there is the theoretical chance it could eventually come before the US Supreme Court, and the SC could hypothetically overturn the law. The US SC has the constitutional authority to overturn any law which it determines is contradictory to the Constitution. This is a basic check and balance defined in the Constitution and its Amendments. But the existing precedents and defining body of work of the US SC to date reveals this whole lawsuit to be frivilous. All it is really accomplishing is an unnecessary logjam, and the 3 judge subpanel of the 9th district should have done their job and upheld the Federal District Judge who originally followed the law and precedent and threw the case out.

Democracy's the worst form of government except for all the others.

--Winston Churchill

God Bless America and our Pledge of Allegiance!

 

[GodsPetMonkey]

Originally posted by Sh3kel
Oh and:

I’m not going to quote the entire song ‘Advance Australia Fair’, look back a few pages!

<SARCASM>
BAN THE AUSTRALIAN ANTHEM! IT MAY OFFEND NON-CHRISTIAN AUSSIES BECAUSE IT REFERES TO CHRIST!
</SARCASM>

Yeah, that is the full version of the song, "Advance Australia Fair", of which our national anthem is taken, but what you don’t realise is that our anthem is in fact...

Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We've golden soil and wealth for toil;
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia Fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair.

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross
We'll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair.

And, upon looking at that, I see no reference to ANY religion, and I’m insulted that you couldn’t even get our true anthem (tip, Australian government sites are probably the best location).

And what’s more, we only ever sing the first verse.

Actually, I find it rather amusing that you 'have' to recite your pledge of allegiance, what a laugh... the only time any Australian has to do that is just before they become an Australian Citizen, and seeing I was born one, I never need to worry about that.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by starlifter
I hesitate to reply to your post because I do not know your education level or background, and you might take it as personal criticism if I reply to it.

Or perhaps I would take the plethora of insulting remarks personally...?

Originally posted by starlifter
I'm afraid you are quite wrong.

Great. Lay your arguements on me!

Originally posted by starlifter
Have you ever actually read the document, or even seen a picture of it?

Okay... started out your great rebuttal with a condescending statement...

Originally posted by starlifter
Do you know when it was written and under what circumstances? If you did, you would surely see how absurd your statements are....

Okay, so two condescending statements to start things out. Still waiting for the great arguements...
I'm sure if you laid a few more insults at my educational level you'd feel even better about yourself.

Originally posted by starlifter
1. Here is a photo. Source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

I have already seen the document in person. Nice picture.
This proves, what exactly? Still waiting for that arguement 3 paragraphs into it...

Originally posted by starlifter
2. As you now doubtless must realize, you were contradicting the document itself (not me) and recorded history.

I must by now? So far you've made two condescending remarks and shown me a picture. This is supposed to influence my opinion how...?

Originally posted by starlifter
In fact, the reason July 4th is Independence Day is because that is the day we formalized, legally and permanantly, the Declaration of Independence and became an Independent nation.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land (meaning greater than the Decleration) has a system by which laws are introduced. The Decleration of Independence was never seen in this system. You will never see a judge rule based on the Decleration, nor a lawyer argue based on it. It is not law. The people that signed it at the time weren't even a majority movement, but were hoping to create on.
Would you like to show me where the Decleration of Independence saw its way through Congress and past the Presidents desk, or was there an unspoken special exception made that you just happen to know about?

Originally posted by starlifter
BTW, of curiosity, where do you attend (or did you attend) school? I hope they did not teach you that... maybe its your memory bad and you just don't check before you post.

Condescending remark #4. Your rebuttal (if it can be called that) to insult ratio is 4 to 1. I'm loosing my patience.

Originally posted by starlifter
The US government come into formal existance in a new Nation at that moment.

Or as a seperate nation from Britian. The U.S. government, that we are speaking about, didn't come into effect until 1787.
Or, can you perhaps prove me wrong by showing me a law (not debt) passed by the Continental Congress or under the Articles of Confederation (not common law) prior to 1787 that has been upheld in court?

Originally posted by starlifter
Your wild-eyed statements just get more absurd!

Does this count as condescending statement #5?

Originally posted by starlifter
It formed the basis for our country, and was instrumental in gaining America international recognition of our new nation. The French ultimately became our allies, and many other nations recognized us

Right. Historically it was very relevant.
I'm still waiting for the point when it became a law or was used in court, or enforced by the executive branch... got anything on that?

Originally posted by starlifter
If you have all 3 in arm's reach, then why not reach over and read them before you post and embarrass youself?

Condescending statement #5? Maybe... but then I would have to pretend I was embarassed...

Originally posted by starlifter
Do you know what the Constitution is and what it's purpose is in American Government? From your strange and inaccurate replies, you do not.

Well that is definately number 5. You've made two paperthin arguements and five insults. I know your posts were long, but I never realized how much padding there is. Reminds me of a blowfish in a way.

Originally posted by starlifter
Its very nature is not to talk about God and the basis of the country's formation.

Which perhaps should be seen as presedence that those issue are not relevant to the governments action. Which begs the question: why did the government feel the need to do so in 1954, if it is not in their role? Or would you like to point out the part of the Constitution that states the government has the right or responsibility to ensure that schoolchildren everywhere say 'under god'? I don't even think the interstate commerce clause can be stretched around that one.

Originally posted by starlifter
PS, Do you know when the Constitution was ratified? America had a functioning government and even army in the interveneing years form 1776 to 17xx (you can state the date, as a simple historical challenge).

[punch]
#6
Running a 2/1 ratio. I hope it improves.

Originally posted by starlifter
Given you demonstrated mastery of nothing you have posted so far, it might be better if you define your "an obscene amount of time"... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

#7

Originally posted by starlifter
But I honestly can't explain your almost complete misunderstanding of historical facts and records of our founding era.

#8

Originally posted by starlifter
Your own private version of history does not jive with recorded reality

A devout Christian lecturing me about reality? That is a first. #9.

Originally posted by starlifter
That is why you are so confused, and have no idea what I or the National Archives are talking about

#10. Do you talk down to people like this in the real world?

Originally posted by starlifter
Let me understand you.... you are asking me to reword the writings of Thomas Jefferson, et.al.?

No, I'm asking you to explain why a tenent as important as you seem to believe 'under god' is would never be mentioned in the Constitution. Without condescending remarks, please.

Originally posted by starlifter
Everyone signed... it was unanimous.

As far as I know, only 55 people (representatives of the rich, white landowners that supported removing the Articles of Confederation) signed the Constitution.
Doesn't mean its not the supreme law of the land, but it does mean your defintion of 'everyone' is a little stretched. Especially considering they added a provision that it didn't have to be universally ratified to become the law, and it wasn't universally amongst the 13 states until May 29, 1790. I know not your definition of unanimous, but that skirts it at best.

Originally posted by starlifter
Most people do not know what it stands for, and the term is used in secular context most of the time.

Then why, oh why, did you submit 'year of our lord', a clearly historical reference point, as evidence that the nation was created as a subservient of the almighty?

Originally posted by starlifter
Unfortunately, you seem to have a total misunderstanding of what the Constitution is, and what it is used for.

#11.

Originally posted by starlifter
See my earlier explanation.

I might have missed it squeezed in between all the condescending remarks.

Originally posted by starlifter
Have you ever Article 6, or the First Amendment?

#12. No, I haven't. I specifically asked you to explain why a nation of God would require that no religious oath be allowed to enter public office WITHOUT actually reading Article 6. It was a lucky guess.

Originally posted by starlifter
So exactly what is your question about it? Feel free to point out where this Article 6 forbids a Pledge of Allegiance..

Forbids an affirmation of faith as a requirement to enter public office.
So why would an affirmation of faith be a expectation to enter public schools?

Originally posted by starlifter
Have you been following this thread or did you just accidently post here?

#13.

Originally posted by starlifter
Absolutely nothing has been talked about making the Pledge an "oath to assume office." Your whole statement is non-sequitor

I was asking how you reconcile your belief that we are, Constitutionally, a nation under God, a requirement that public office holders affirm this, as you claim, obvious truism, with the fact that its explicitely unconstitutional.
Why does the same logic you use in defeding the pledge of allegiance in public schools not stand for a pledge of allegiance in public office?

Originally posted by starlifter
Well, I'm really not sure why you posted such a grossly inacurate post, despite claiming reading an "obscene" amount.

#14.
When you respond, can you please edit out the condescending remarks before you post so I don't have to spend so much time filtering through them to find your one or two points. You could have fit the arguements onto a post-it note.

 

[Graeme the mad]

you show that starlifter greadius

That was a fantastic post greadisu and I think if starlifter actually bothers to think about it he may be very very embarrased

Well done

 

[damunzy]

The problem Graeme is that he doesn't have time to think if he wants to keep his posts long. The winky means it is a joke right star and not to be taken seriously?

Thank you Greadius for having the words to say what I mean....erm, something like that. Your reply post was awesome and you almost completed it without a return flame, but you got a little sizzle in there "I know your posts were long, but I never realized how much padding there is. Reminds me of a blowfish in a way.". Funny, but try not to stoop to his level.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by starlifter
When this is heard by the entire 9th District Court, I doubt they will find 5 judicial activists.... but I do not know the biographies. It is a huge step from 2 to 5, at the DC level . The 9th DC will probably just reverse themselves (as their job, precedent, law, and Supreme Court Decisions require them to do). If they don't, they better have a much better arguement for their 2-1 decision than they have made public so far. And other DC's and the SC itself know it....

No, their job requires them to give this a fair hearing.

edited: to make my point more apparent. I changed around the bolding.

 

[starlifter]

LOL, Greadius, you'd argue with yourself. No wait, you already are !

Feel free to express yourself however you would like!

You are evidently already educated enough to realize your own statements are often wrong, or deliberately off the point, and in reply, even off some points that you bring up....

BTW, you are the one that raised your education, study, documents at arm's reach, etc. Which is why I realize you know better and in fact are attempting just to bait!

For example, even in your newest reply:

The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land (meaning greater than the Decleration) has a system by which laws are introduced. The Decleration of Independence was never seen in this system.

What are you trying to argue by saying "The Declaration of Independence is not law" ? This is not the topic of the thread! Feel free to start a new thread with that, and I'll post to it.

Same with the Constitution.

But then you say "the supreme law of the land (meaning greater than the Declaration) ", which in itself contradicts your first sentence the Declaration of Independence is not law...

In short, you seem incapable of following a sustained thought, or are deliberately making yourself look silly.

Jeeze, what on earth do you mean by "The Decleration of Independence was never seen in this system." ?


Actually, it does not matter, because you are so far afield right now, that I'm not going to continue replying unless you want to start a new thread and stay focused.

I'm loosing my patience.

LOL! You've lost something else, .

Originally posted by starlifter:

The US government come into formal existance in a new Nation at that moment.
--------------------
by Greadius:
Or as a seperate nation from Britian.

Try hard to understand... what does "Or as a separate nation from Britain" mean in the context of following the fact that America became a nation with it's Declaration of Independence?

You said: "The U.S. government, that we are speaking about, didn't come into effect until 1787." ... huh??? Why are you now off on this subject?

You said "Or, can you perhaps prove me wrong by showing me a law (not debt) passed by the Continental Congress or under the Articles of Confederation (not common law) prior to 1787 that has been upheld in court?"

Why do you keep throwing stuff out and inviting to be shown wrong? I suspect you already know some of this stuff... but you are again, getting off from the topic and focus.

You might have some very good material for the History Forum. Seriously. Your area of interest and expertise will suit an thread there very well! There is no hidden agenda... just start a thread about the Nation's Founding, or the Founding Documents.

Which perhaps should be seen as presedence that those issue are not relevant to the governments action. Which begs the question: why did the government feel the need to do so in 1954, if it is not in their role? Or would you like to point out the part of the Constitution that states the government has the right or responsibility to ensure that schoolchildren everywhere say 'under god'? I don't even think the interstate commerce clause can be stretched around that one.

Feel free to start a topic on the Government's decision making process in 1954.

You asked: "Or would you like to point out the part of the Constitution that states the government has the right or responsibility..."

LOL, You are somehow denying the houses of Congress can enact laws? Interesting assertion, but put it in another thread if you are serious about questioning the right of Congress to enact laws.

Do you talk down to people like this in the real world?

In the Real World, few people would attempt to make the assertions you do! The laughter at the outrageousness of some of your absurd implications would make it pretty hard to reply, however!!

Originally posted by starlifter:

Have you ever Article 6, or the First Amendment?

--------

by Graedus:
#12. No, I haven't.

LOL, well I actually suspect you have and are just trolling......

I specifically asked you to explain why a nation of God would require that no religious oath be allowed to enter public office WITHOUT actually reading Article 6

Once again, for the umpteenth time... why are you going so far afield? The answer is because you either can't or won't stay on topic....

I'll let the Constitution speak for itself! If I were to make you read it again, you'd just be "offended", since it is quite clear you are either baiting or simply no comprehend the English!

Let's see this raised properly in a history thread, and we'll discuss the constitutional oaths or affirmations .

Originally posted by starlifter:

So exactly what is your question about it? Feel free to point out where this Article 6 forbids a Pledge of Allegiance..

-----------

by Greadius:
Forbids an affirmation of faith as a requirement to enter public office.

Are you really really having that much difficulty? No. I can see you are in fact intelligent, and simply refusing to track.... this is simply trolling for a response, LOL....

We are trying to keep on target of at least the discussion of the Pledge... and you're digressing into an explicitly written part of the Constitution dealing with requirements to hold office. This is simply irrelevant in this thread.... but feel free to start another one in the History Forum!

But just to humor you ....

Article 6, Paragraph 3, The Constitution of the United States of America:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state
legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several
states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

In case you have difficulty reading several consecutive sentences in context, let me help you. This is talking about holding office in the state or national government.

It says the aforementioned gov't officials:


1. Shall be bound by oath or affirmation.
2. Religious tests will never be required as a qualification to hold office or public trust under the United States

No mention is made about the specific makeup of the oaths or affirmations.

Are you still having trouble with this, LOL?

Why does the same logic you use in defeding the pledge of allegiance in public schools not stand for a pledge of allegiance in public office?

I totally don't get this. I am not objecting to Article 6, paragraph 3. It is completely unrealated to the Pledge Of Allegiance!


The Pledge is a law passed by the Congress and signed into law by the Executive. Article 6 is unrelated, and in fact is a part of the Constitution. I do not represent that the logic is the same.... I have no comment at all in this thead, as it is self-evident and will only "offend" you more, and send your discussion further afield. But I might well comment if you wish to seriously talk about the Constitutional aspects of Article 6 in a World History thread.

When you respond, can you please edit out the condescending remarks before you post so I don't have to spend so much time filtering through them to find your one or two points. You could have fit the arguments onto a post-it note.

You've been the one opening the door with recitations of your "obscene" reading habits, US Founding documents at arm's reach, etc.

Many of your original "points" were grossly in error given the esteemed light in which you presented your "knowledge".

After reading your posts now, it is obvious you are relatively intelligent, but are trying to distract from the discussion at hand, while sprinkling in a few seemingly-related phrases and buzzwords once in a while so you can claim you are serious, if called.

Well, I encourage you to post some of your issues in one or more threads in the history Forum, where the discussion can stay "focused" on hat you are indicating you would like to talk about.

Have a good day!



PS, I'm really not mad or upset at you, it's just that all the issues you raise are better served by viewpoints other than just mine, and people don't know to look here to comment. You can get a broad spectrum of input for your wide variety of questions in the World History Forum.


And God Bless America, this great nation, under God!

 

[CurtSibling]

If George Washington could see this thread he would laugh his wig off!


To me it doesn't matter if any of you get into an upset state
about the USA's pledge and the archaic wording of a document...
Anyhow your government would change the stars and stripes if it suited their agenda...

At the end of the day religion and patriotic feelings are optional.

Not every kid is going to leave school a bible-reading true blue,
ready to join the army at a moments notice...

Sorry, but that's the reality.

 

[damunzy]

starlifter, the only one I see in the debate between you and Greadius that is "trolling for a response" would be you. He made one little flame to your barrage of them and you have the audacity to blame him for "trying to distract from the discussion at hand". Your little insults do more damage to this discussion that any errors Greadius might have made in his posts. I would suggest that you reread what Greadius has posted but I doubt that you would.

 

[starlifter]

by PH76:

No, their job requires them to give this a fair hearing.

Actually, that is part of their job. A fair hearing alone is not their job. A Federal Appeals Court must follow the body of US law and precedence and procedure. In this case, the original judge of juurisdiction threw out the case, as it had no basis in fact. The Appeals court convened 3 judges to give the fair hearing, and their error is obvious to the legal community. The majority (of the 2-1) opinon judge suspended the force of the ruling today. A Federal District Court, at the end of the day, cannot contradict a US Supreme Court ruling or their existing body of Law, like happened here.

What is going on is legal retrenchment, and people will attempt to get their own arguements together to justify their postions at a future hearing. There will be lots of legal hair splitting in order to try and position the various arguements in or out of the line of fire of the existing body of rulings (precedent) from the Supreme Court. For the case to continue to be upheld, it will take very very creative plantiff lawyers! Most likely, it will die at the 9th District Court.

Sorry!