Re: Depends upon the ruling.

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #43,676

by rsf

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.

Federal judge: Pledge of Allegiance violates US Constitution - (bbronson) - (43) - June 26, 2002, 03:47:07 PM EDT

Yes, I recall when that phrase was added. - (Ashton) - (25) - June 26, 2002, 04:22:58 PM EDT

Dammit! - (Brandioch) - (24) - June 26, 2002, 04:53:07 PM EDT

Well...we'll just have to.. - (bepatient) - (20) - June 26, 2002, 06:27:24 PM EDT

Ah, once again, you missed the point. - (Brandioch) - (17) - June 26, 2002, 07:02:42 PM EDT

Nope...you missed mine. - (bepatient) - (16) - June 26, 2002, 08:19:18 PM EDT

Maybe I was reading that incorrectly. - (Brandioch) - (15) - June 26, 2002, 08:27:56 PM EDT

Wow.... - (bepatient) - (14) - June 26, 2002, 10:32:51 PM EDT

Let me simplify this for you. - (Brandioch) - (13) - June 26, 2002, 11:43:07 PM EDT

My my - (bepatient) - (12) - June 27, 2002, 07:13:59 AM EDT

I'll address this in two parts. - (Brandioch) - (11) - June 27, 2002, 10:51:13 AM EDT

*cackle* - (bepatient) - (3) - June 27, 2002, 11:13:10 AM EDT

I'll use really small words for you. - (Brandioch) - June 27, 2002, 12:37:33 PM EDT

Now, for everyone who doesn't understand what "strawman" is. - (Brandioch) - (1) - June 27, 2002, 12:45:16 PM EDT

>2< Posts this time...way cool! - (bepatient) - June 27, 2002, 12:59:46 PM EDT

More than retooling quarters - (rsf) - (5) - June 27, 2002, 12:58:14 PM EDT

Ah... - (bepatient) - June 27, 2002, 01:02:06 PM EDT

Depends upon the ruling. - (Brandioch) - (3) - June 27, 2002, 01:54:54 PM EDT

Even better... - (bepatient) - June 27, 2002, 02:22:30 PM EDT

Re: Depends upon the ruling. - (rsf) - (1) - June 27, 2002, 03:30:47 PM EDT

But that's the issue. - (Brandioch) - June 27, 2002, 05:01:35 PM EDT

More than retooling quarters - (rsf) - June 27, 2002, 12:59:05 PM EDT

In Dog We Strut - (deSitter) - (1) - June 27, 2002, 11:45:31 AM EDT

Heh... - (bepatient) - June 27, 2002, 02:19:08 PM EDT

While you are at it ... - (bluke) - (2) - June 27, 2002, 06:17:07 AM EDT

I guess reading is a skill... - (jb4) - (1) - June 27, 2002, 08:54:06 AM EDT

I just think that the pundits... - (Simon_Jester) - June 27, 2002, 04:35:20 PM EDT

Senate immediately proves that dumb is cool. - (Brandioch) - (1) - June 26, 2002, 08:40:32 PM EDT

uhhh... - (jb4) - June 26, 2002, 09:27:45 PM EDT

Blatantly stolen from CNN - (Brandioch) - June 26, 2002, 08:43:13 PM EDT

Congress fulminates: stands outside and recites. - (Ashton) - (5) - June 27, 2002, 03:30:03 AM EDT

User Friendly. Get it fast. - (Brandioch) - (1) - June 27, 2002, 04:46:26 AM EDT

I'll genuflect to that! -NT - (Ashton) - June 27, 2002, 05:41:47 AM EDT

Of course you meant "One Nation under Rah!". -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (2) - June 27, 2002, 08:44:46 PM EDT

I pledge allegiance - (Yendor) - (1) - June 28, 2002, 10:11:21 AM EDT

Where do I sign up ;-) -NT - (bepatient) - June 28, 2002, 10:20:00 AM EDT

I love Bill Mahr's take last night - (drewk) - June 27, 2002, 09:29:17 AM EDT

Okay, this is a tangent, but I think it's applicable. - (Brandioch) - (3) - June 27, 2002, 02:00:16 PM EDT

But I thought you were an atheist? -NT - (imric) - (2) - June 27, 2002, 02:23:22 PM EDT

I'm going for effect. - (Brandioch) - (1) - June 27, 2002, 03:23:11 PM EDT

For Effect... - (Simon_Jester) - June 27, 2002, 04:38:41 PM EDT

On NPR now: discussion, debate, fulminations - (Ashton) - (2) - June 27, 2002, 02:20:30 PM EDT

Is that vaguely reminiscient of "separate but equal"? - (Brandioch) - (1) - June 27, 2002, 03:17:57 PM EDT

"I plagiarize egregiousness to the flagging of the - (Ashton) - June 28, 2002, 05:35:08 PM EDT

What you're selling, I do not need.
82 ms