Depends upon the ruling.

Post #43,654 by Brandioch 6/27/02 1:54:54 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 6/27/02 2:22:30 PM Reply	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 by rsf 6/27/02 3:30:47 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 6/27/02 5:01:35 PM Reply	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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!