Post #43,528
6/26/02 3:47:07 PM
|

Federal judge: Pledge of Allegiance violates US Constitution
[link|http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledgeofallegiance.ap/index.html|CNN]
Brian Bronson
|
Post #43,534
6/26/02 4:22:58 PM
|

Yes, I recall when that phrase was added.
In one sense - the ritual recitation of even the previous 'clean' version - is pretty close to the entire loyalty oath matter of the McCarthy era. The idea fails of course, via the Point
A (any) coerced-oath is invalid on the face of it..
(See Ernst Cantorovitch (sp), his essay about the brouhaha at UCB - and whatever Google shows about the loyalty oath, the litigation and - its repeal) Misplaced my links just now.
ie when you Want to express your sentiments about wherever you happen to live - fine. When you are Required to - under whatever social or other penalty for failing to do so: It IS coerced.
As to the present 'under god' Bowdlerization - what has Taken Us So Long to address this gratuitous and patently unConstitutional form? No guts?
Ashton Al Goodwin Rocks
|
Post #43,539
6/26/02 4:53:07 PM
|

Dammit!
Now how are we going to identify the God-less Communists hiding in our country? The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal. So? Change "God" to "Allah" and see how many people have a problem with it. :) "minimal"! Ha!
|
Post #43,550
6/26/02 6:27:24 PM
|

Well...we'll just have to..
...see if their hands tremble when holding money.
Actually...I see us having to spend millions retooling the mints...
You know...good, common sense investment principles...we don't have anything better on which to spend our bad, nay, >evul< religious currency.
Everyone get your markers out...make sure it says "In xxx We Trust"
Nope...nothing better to do as a collective but make sure our kids aren't >swayed< by the big bad wolf.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,551
6/26/02 7:02:42 PM
|

Ah, once again, you missed the point.
Like I posted, supposed it was "Allah" instead of "God"?
No, don't suppose. Since you feel so strongly on this point, why don't you have your children replace "God" with "Allah" in the PoA at school and see what happens to them.
After all, it isn't such a big thing, is it?
Just indoctrination.
|
Post #43,554
6/26/02 8:19:18 PM
|

Nope...you missed mine.
There was no support given in my post for the recitation of the PoA at school.
Just wondering...now that they've whacked that "under God" as unConstitutional...when are they gonna start retooling the mints.
>My< point was that we have WAY bigger fish to fry.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,560
6/26/02 8:27:56 PM
|

Maybe I was reading that incorrectly.
>My< point was that we have WAY bigger fish to fry. Since the article was about the PoA and removing "under God" from that, your response would seem to be about that. While there may be "bigger fish" out there, this is a very simple task to accomplish. And it has already been accomplished. Done. If you're refering to retooling the plates..... That wasn't mentioned in the story. That is something you introduced. So, if you're complaining that we have bigger fish than something that you introduced that wasn't addressed in the article......... Whatever.
|
Post #43,573
6/26/02 10:32:51 PM
|

Wow....
...high density.
Or vacuum.
Can't figure which sometimes.
Whatever backatcha.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,585
6/26/02 11:43:07 PM
|

Let me simplify this for you.
#1. The discussion was about "under God" making the PoA unConstitutional when kids are forced to recite it in public schools.
#2. You spewed various bits which included that this was minor and we had bigger fish.
#3. The LOGICAL deduction was that you were addressing the topic of the previous post.
#4. The LOGICAL deduction would have been wrong as you were addressing your own spew and claiming that your own claims, which were tangentially related to the previous post, were minor.
Great. Whatever. You don't have any comment about the TOPIC of the PREVIOUS POST, but you feel compelled to post anyway. Whatever.
|
Post #43,612
6/27/02 7:13:59 AM
|

My my
Full of piss-n-vinegar are we?
Find out about the guy who filed the lawsuit.
He wants 2 things.
One of them was legislated yesterday.
The other one was referenced in my "spew".
Whatever backatcha squared, dood.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,629
6/27/02 10:51:13 AM
|

I'll address this in two parts.
#1. What he WANTS doesn't matter.
What the RULING is is what matters.
#2. And for your information, we're ALREADY re-tooling the stupid QUARTERS.
50 times!
So, no, re-tooling the REST of money is NOT that big of a deal.
#1 (again). And it doesn't matter UNTIL he brings his case to court and UNTIL the ruling is in his favour.
Now, to remind you, he has NOT brought that case to court.
Also, to remind you, NOTHING has been ruled on that.
Also, nothing WILL BE ruled on that UNTIL he brings it to court.
Finally, no one CARES what he WANTS. It's what he DOES that matters.
|
Post #43,630
6/27/02 11:13:10 AM
|

*cackle*
So he has success and your guess is he'll just quit.
Nah...doubt it...he's too afraid of the big bad wolf.
You certainly can take a relatively light comment and turn it into a chore, can't you?
Later.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,641
6/27/02 12:37:33 PM
|

I'll use really small words for you.
So he has success and your guess is he'll just quit. He is not the government. (Damn. I had to use a polysyllabic word there. I've probably lost you.) He is not the court. He is not the President. He is not the House or Senate. What he wants does not matter. He must take his case to the court. The judge must rule that he is right. Then that ruling can be appealed. (damn. "appealed" is too big. probably lost you again) If the government (lost you again) has lost all the way to the USSC, then they must change the money. Only when ALL of those things happen, will we have to change the money. At which point, you say it will be too expensive. But we're already changing the quarters 50 times. Pennies Nickles Dimes Quarters Half-Dollars Dollar coins Dollar bills $2 $5 $10 $20 $50 $100 etc. Even if we changed ALL the money, it would STILL be FEWER changes than we are currently going through VOLUNTARILY with the quarters. Again. #1. What he WANTS does not matter. #2. He has to go through the SYSTEM to get his WANTS enacted. #3. Even if he wins ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE SYSTEM.....the impact will be less than what we're going through right now. Is there is ANYONE other than Mr. Pathetic who has a PROBLEM understanding the situation?
|
Post #43,642
6/27/02 12:45:16 PM
|

Now, for everyone who doesn't understand what "strawman" is.
This is paraphrased.
I say that what this person WANTS doesn't matter. He still has to take it through the system, which has to agree with him, before any changes are even contemplated.
Mr. Pathetic, instead of addressing my position, skips to another, more easily disproven position and introduces "Nah...doubt it...he's too afraid of the big bad wolf."
I didn't say he was afraid.
I didn't say he was not afraid.
But this is what Bill "Strawman" Pathetic will switch to.
And the reason for that is because Bill was unprepared with facts to discuss this issue.
#1. The case against the money has NOT been brought to trial.
#2. Until it IS brought to trial and ruled upon, discussions about the rulling (which hasn't happened yet) are meaningless.
#3. We're already spending MORE than what it would cost to re-do the existing money by RE-DOING the existing quarters.
|
Post #43,648
6/27/02 12:59:46 PM
|

>2< Posts this time...way cool!
And I knew you wouldn't be able to get through this without starting with the insults.
You're getting predictable.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,646
6/27/02 12:58:14 PM
|

More than retooling quarters
If the phrase "IN GOD WE TRUST" were ruled to be unConstitutional, not only would we have to retool the dies used to press coins, all U.S. currency in circulation (I think this might also include all government backed securities too) would have to be recalled and replaced with the Court approved equivalent.
Of course, we could just worry about the currency that will be pressed and say they currency already in circulation is ok. But that would be too pragmatic for the 9th Circut and would also dilute the weight of their ruling. Paper money can last for decades, coins forever. If it's ok to let it go on old money, why not just acknowledge that the issue is not worth the bother. There are bigger fish to fry.
Ray
|
Post #43,649
6/27/02 1:02:06 PM
|

Ah...
...don't stop him now Ray...he's on a roll!
Quarters..roll...get it???
I'm killin myself here!
:-) :-)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,654
6/27/02 1:54:54 PM
|

Depends upon the ruling.
Just as having that phrase in the PoA is not "unConstitutional". But requiring that children in public schools recite it is. If it's ok to let it go on old money, why not just acknowledge that the issue is not worth the bother. There are bigger fish to fry. Ah, but I'm not the one that brought the subject up. I've pointed out in a previous post that there are a number of steps that must happen before we even get to the point of considering whether to recall old money and replace it with new. Bill "Strawman" Pathetic was the one that went off about a ruling that hasn't happened yet for a case that hasn't even been filed yet. I was pointing out that this is standard practice from him.
|
Post #43,663
6/27/02 2:22:30 PM
|

Even better...
...he spreads the insults to responses to >other< posters.
Talk about making a mountain of a molehill.
You're on Everest.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,676
6/27/02 3:30:47 PM
|

Re: Depends upon the ruling.
Just as having that phrase in the PoA is not "unConstitutional".
But requiring that children in public schools recite it is.
Having the name 'God' on currency is not un-Constitutional. However, having the name 'God' on currency that is produced by and backed by the U.S. Federal Government can be, and probably will be, construed by the 9th Circut as an endorsement of religion by the Government.
BTW, did you know that the guy who filed the PoA suit is intending to file to have the name 'God' removed from currency? Bill's 'strawman' is relevant to this issue because this PoA case, if it stands, pretty much breaks down the barrier to removing any hint of religion or omnipotent beings from any institution, event, or object that has any connection with government.
Ray
|
Post #43,685
6/27/02 5:01:35 PM
|

But that's the issue.
This case has to withstand the legislative might of the current Congress. They CAN pass laws that are unConstitutional. And the USSC can support laws that are unConstitutional.
AFTER THAT.....
He still has to bring the other case to court.
And it has to be accepted.
And the judge has to rule on it in favour of him.
And THAT case has to withstand the Congress/USSC.
And THEN AND ONLY THEN does it become an issue. Depending upon how the court mandates that it be handled.
Which I am not going to speculate upon as we're already into TOO many levels of "IF".
And that's the whole deal. At any point along this, the Government can just say that they're removing "In God We Trust" from the NEXT plates. There. End of discussion. Or the Congress could pass the "Defense of Currency Act" and claim that "In God We Trust" isn't "religious" but "historical" and that carrying coins with it upon does NOT violate Church/State separation. (Yes, they can do that and the USSC can uphold it (and later generations can overturn it).)
And so on and so forth.
So I'm sticking with what has been ruled and the consequences of that and the processes that follow that.
|
Post #43,647
6/27/02 12:59:05 PM
|

More than retooling quarters
If the phrase "IN GOD WE TRUST" were ruled to be unConstitutional, not only would we have to retool the dies used to press coins, all U.S. currency in circulation (I think this might also include all government backed securities too) would have to be recalled and replaced with the Court approved equivalent.
Of course, we could just worry about the currency that will be pressed and say they currency already in circulation is ok. But that would be too pragmatic for the 9th Circut and would also dilute the weight of their ruling. Paper money can last for decades, coins forever. If it's ok to let it go on old money, why not just acknowledge that the issue is not worth the bother. There are bigger fish to fry.
Ray
|
Post #43,632
6/27/02 11:45:31 AM
|

In Dog We Strut
Dylsexic? Me?
|
Post #43,660
6/27/02 2:19:08 PM
|

Heh...
Dyslexic >and< a bad speller ;-)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,607
6/27/02 6:17:07 AM
|

While you are at it ...
the Declaration of Independence needs to be scrapped as well, as it states that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights
|
Post #43,616
6/27/02 8:54:06 AM
|

I guess reading is a skill...
...that many of us, at least, are not endowed by our Creator with....
To Sen. Byrd and his Merry Band of Dumbshit Demagogues: The Pledge of Allegiance was not...repeat, NOT ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Court of Appeals. Requiring school students to recite said Pledge was ruled to be unconstitutional.
So, Senator Moron, the Court will not come to arrest you (although I sorely wish it could find something to arrest you for...if only there were such a thing a Criminal Stupidity, you'd be in line for a Class I felony charge)...at least, not yet.... Go ahead and recite it to your hear's content. Put it in big bold letters at the top of your semi-annual mailings that you waste taxpayer money on.
But to answer bluke, who seems equally as devoid of reading skills as is the Good Senator, The Declaration of Independence is safe...so long as you don't require schoolchildren to recite it every moring before they start the real work of Corporate Droid Indoctrination.
jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
|
Post #43,682
6/27/02 4:35:20 PM
|

I just think that the pundits...
needed something to bash.
This is already pretty humorous -- considering that the JW's have already fought (and won) when schools required students to say the Pledge of Allegience (PoA) - something to do with religious freedom.
Now, apparently this case merely extends it (slightly) so that students can't be required to stand and listen to the PoA.
|
Post #43,562
6/26/02 8:40:32 PM
|

Senate immediately proves that dumb is cool.
[link|http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/26/senate.resolution.pledge/index.html|CNN] In a statement, Hastert said:
"Obviously, the liberal court in San Francisco has gotten this one wrong. Of course, we are one nation, under God. The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic salute that brings people of all faiths together to share in the American spirit. That is true. We are many faiths, under God. Just smile and nod. Of course, we are one nation, under Allah. What the fuck. I hereby propose that we keep the divine reference in the PoA. And each religion will hereby be awarded one day upon which the children and Congress will recite the PoA with the appropriate substitution made. I can't wait to see the Senate pledge "...under Allah..."
|
Post #43,566
6/26/02 9:27:45 PM
|

uhhh...
...while I agree that Hastert can be (and has recently been...repeatedly) dumber than a box of rocks, he is not a Senator...yet...
(Praise Allah! for small favors...)
jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
|
Post #43,563
6/26/02 8:43:13 PM
|

Blatantly stolen from CNN
It's a popup on their site and I can't link to it.
History of the PoA.
1892: The pledge, written by socialist editor and clergyman Francis Bellamy, debuts September 8 in the juvenile periodical The Youth's Companion. He wants the words to reflect the views of his cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of "Looking Backward" and other socialist utopian novels. It reads: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all."
1924: The words "the flag of the United States of America" are substituted for "my Flag." Fittingly, the change takes place on Flag Day.
1942: The government officially recognizes the Pledge of Allegiance.
1954: Worried that orations used by "godless communists" sound similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, religious leaders lobby lawmakers to insert the words "under God" into the pledge. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, fearing an atomic war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, joins the chorus to put God into the pledge. Congress does what he asks, and the revised pledge reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
|
Post #43,600
6/27/02 3:30:03 AM
|

Congress fulminates: stands outside and recites.
Gosh - what a Big Surprise.
Time to badmouth the Judiciary as Eevul Commie Atheist Running Dogs. Again. Perhaps some uppity Judges might join next, our version of Argentina's The Disappeared (?)
I Love the Smell! of simmering sanctimony au jus in the morning..
Ashton One Nation under Cthulhu, undecipherable
|
Post #43,602
6/27/02 4:46:26 AM
|

User Friendly. Get it fast.
[link|http://www.userfriendly.org/static/|...one nation...]
|
Post #43,604
6/27/02 5:41:47 AM
|

I'll genuflect to that!
|
Post #43,707
6/27/02 8:44:46 PM
|

Of course you meant "One Nation under Rah!".
Alex
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
|
Post #43,750
6/28/02 10:11:21 AM
|

I pledge allegiance
to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one Nation around the GRR indivisible with Liberty and Justice for All.
-YendorMike
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about? - Jimmy Buffett, June 20, 2002, Tinley Park
|
Post #43,752
6/28/02 10:20:00 AM
|

Where do I sign up ;-)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,620
6/27/02 9:29:17 AM
|

I love Bill Mahr's take last night
Background: Politically Incorrect has been cancelled. They're just letting him keep doing the show until the host of the eventual replacement, Jimmy Kimmel of The Man Show fame, is able to start.
So anyway, Mahr was talking about how the Senate passed something 99-0 supporting the PoA. "What a bunch of pandering pussies."
Huge ovation from the audience. One of his guests said, "What a bastard. I love it. I can't believe they cancelled you; they're insane."
Bill again: "Then they all went out onto Capital steps and recited the Pledge, with gusto. You know what? Get the f*** back inside and do some real work you morons."
The show has been a lot more fun to watch since Bill is no longer worried about losing his job.
=== Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #43,656
6/27/02 2:00:16 PM
|

Okay, this is a tangent, but I think it's applicable.
[link|http://home.earthlink.net/~paganmade/|One nation, under God.]
I'm thinking of getting a couple.
|
Post #43,664
6/27/02 2:23:22 PM
|

But I thought you were an atheist?
Imric's Tips for Living- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Post #43,675
6/27/02 3:23:11 PM
|

I'm going for effect.
In other areas, a Star of David in the same Stars & Stripes pattern would be as effective.
And a bill to replace "One nation, under God" with "One nation, under Yahweh".
Actually, since it says "God" and not "Christ", "Yahweh" SHOULD be a perfectly acceptable replacement.
:)
(yes, I know. Allah and Yahweh and God are all the same....whatever. It's the "prophets" and "sons" and so on that distinguish them (dramatically over-simplified)).
|
Post #43,683
6/27/02 4:38:41 PM
|

For Effect...
Allah is better.... much better.
|
Post #43,661
6/27/02 2:20:30 PM
|

On NPR now: discussion, debate, fulminations
One quote from Const. scholar at Yale:
"Rehnquist moving away from the Burger Court's view: From 'strict separation' ---> [something imagined as] 'neutrality'."
ie. (my summary of that 'meaning') - this so-called neutraliy is that of , "well.. Everybody Believes in 'god' - Sooo... so as long as we don't focus upon a Particular duelling-version of the Best God.. s'OK for the government to pander to "All Gods".
(Of course - what this leaves for the citizens who find God-stuff to lie behind our frequent Warz on everything imaginable is: Opposition. There's no place in This Murica for the non God-besotted)
Ashton Wall of Separation kinda Commie Pinko Opposition
|
Post #43,674
6/27/02 3:17:57 PM
|

Is that vaguely reminiscient of "separate but equal"?
"Rehnquist moving away from the Burger Court's view: From 'strict separation' ---> [something imagined as] 'neutrality'." Can they be "neutral" without being "strictly separate"? Again, a simple proof would be whether we could get "One nation, under Allah" passed as a suitable replacement for "One nation, under God". It's "neutral" and nothing to worry about WHEN IT IS YOUR GOD who is given preeminence. Them's fightin' words when it the OTHER GUY'S blasphemous misrepresentation is given preeminence and the TRUE GOD isn't even mentioned. ('specially when we happen to be at war with them heathens) It isn't that we be favourin' one side nor that we be SAYIN' that one side be "better". We be "neutral" and they be "equal" to us.
|
Post #43,836
6/28/02 5:35:08 PM
|

"I plagiarize egregiousness to the flagging of the
Republic for which it stood.. til it didn't."
or
I placate legions with the swag and for the Republicans which stand to collect it, with liberty and justice for all [3-5% give or mostly, take].
|