Pledge of Allegiance ruled Unconstitutional

[mr.Curmudgeon]

How did Roberts manage to get more than one vote?

He didn't...my point is that his apparent philosophy (if one can be drawn from his complete lack of forthcoming at the hearings)...maintains the conservative bent of the Supreme Court. They'll strike this ruling down if they accept the case on appeal.

This current Chicken-little syndrome be damned.


mrC

[ChadTower]

So realistically, since Roberts is replacing a conservative vote, nothing changes.

[fredster]

That's Correct Chad

Nothing at all has changed.

[ChadTower]

It will when they fill O'Connor's seat, though.  That will be one of the ugliest fights ever.  Roberts personally got lucky when a conservative seat opened up in the middle of the Democrats filibustering his nomination, so they could just roll over on him and focus on the liberal seat Roberts was originally filling.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It will when they fill O'Connor's seat, though.  That will be one of the ugliest fights ever.  Roberts personally got lucky when a conservative seat opened up in the middle of the Democrats filibustering his nomination, so they could just roll over on him and focus on the liberal seat Roberts was originally filling.

Well, it should get nasty if Bush nominates someone outside of the mainstream. Anyhow, I think Roberts getting through is a combination of two things, luck and skill. He's good. I personally have not had alarm bells going off...his statements are evasive and I am extremely displeased with the WH's refusal to release all the pertainent documents on Roberts - I mean, he *is* applying for a frickin' lifetime position - but I think he seems intelligent enough to weigh factual evidence and discard personal philosophy.

I have more of a problem with his "pro-corporate" tendencies, as opposed to his potential social-conservatism (I even get the sense that he may end up being more socially liberal than Bush supporters would like). But, like others on the left have said, he's probably the best we're going to get from Bush.

O'Connor's replacement will be an entirely different story. Bush is spiteful, and I imagine he'll see this Roberts appointment as a "mandate" to force his own philosophy down our throats with that nomination.

I hope the Dems play their cards right on that one, if that's the case.

mrC

[ChadTower]

The only cards the Dems have are the same ones they usually play.  They'll delay, refuse to vote, do a lot of yelling, screaming, and generally just try to string the process out to 2008 while hoping a Democrat wins the White House.

[Dartful Dodger]

The only cards the Dems have are the same ones they usually play.

They don't play at all, they just let things happen then complain about it afterward.

Their strategy is fine with me, I get what I want, they get to complain, everybody wins.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That's Correct Chad

Nothing at all has changed.

Fredster,
But that won't stop Conservatives from playing the victim with this 9th circuit ruling. Just watch the "So Called Liberal Media" over the next few days...they'll be acting as if the sky is falling.

Nothing at all has changed. Exactly.

Chad,

The only cards the Dems have are the same ones they usually play.  They'll delay, refuse to vote, do a lot of yelling, screaming, and generally just try to string the process out to 2008 while hoping a Democrat wins the White House.

Well, if the cause is just, then more power to them, that's their job as minority party if they disagree with the nominee. They could do that now with Roberts, so I think his appointment (without filibuster) will prove that they are not solely partisan actors (all the time).

You've got to give them a break on some aspects of these hearings. The Bush administration is one of the most secretive bunch of officials to have graced the halls of the WH in an extremely long time. The Dems main beef with the GOP and WH re: Robert's is the lack of background provided on the guy. Even though I would most likely vote for Robert's myself at this point, I'd have an extremely difficult time doing so because of the unnerving precedent is sets for future nominees. This isn't a game, it's the highest court in the land.

I mean, what next? Will the next nominee receive their hearing as they stand behind a curtain? "You can't see who they are until you vote for them! Nah, nah, nah naaaah nah!"

Dartful,

They don't play at all, they just let things happen then complain about it afterward.

Again...makes no sense. Dur. Shouldn't you be out playing in traffic?


mrC

[ChadTower]

I don't consider refusing to vote as doing their jobs.  I see it as analagous to a doctor refusing to treat patients or a cook refusing to make food.  It is their JOB to vote.  If they don't like the issue, vote no, but do the job and cast the vote.

[Stingray]

But, like others on the left have said, he's probably the best we're going to get from Bush.

I have to reluctanly agree with this assessment.

-S

[ChadTower]

It's not like the guy is a scumbag.  He is a good man with whose views you happen to disagree.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I don't consider refusing to vote as doing their jobs.  I see it as analagous to a doctor refusing to treat patients or a cook refusing to make food.  It is their JOB to vote.  If they don't like the issue, vote no, but do the job and cast the vote.

Politicians, on both sides, do what it takes to "win", sometimes that means holding up a vote by not voting. Them's the rules. If you don't like them, lobby for change. I don't completely agree with it, but then again, we've never had such a power-mad administration as this one. Checks n' balances have served this nation since its founding, and as such, I'm more apt to leave certain things in tact. Even if they don't always seem fair.

It's not like the guy is a scumbag. He is a good man with whose views you happen to disagree.

Who are you talking about? Roberts or Bush? If Roberts, how can you glean, from the somewhat limited info available to the public via the media, that he is a "good man"? Did you do you're own non-partisan research? Did you look into his soul? I can see saying that he is "intelligent" and/or "modestly conservative"...but a "good man"...that's the kind of B.S. Bush says about everyone....even Putin.

If Bush, well, then obviously I disagree, since I think he gives scumbags a bad name.



mrC

[markrvp]

Well, it should get nasty if Bush nominates someone outside of the mainstream.

You apparently are in denial about what is mainstream America.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You apparently are in denial about what is mainstream America.

Not true. If you look at the country's timeline, America is undeniably progressive in nature. Civil Rights, Women's rights, etc...

A large number of those "liberal" votes are from poor voters looking to continue their government handout or from Union Workers who don't want to have to compete for their jobs.

Source? or conjecture?

Those cities have their own views on morality and what is acceptable which are not in line with the mainstream majority of Americans. 

So you think rural means mainstream?

mrC

[ChadTower]

Roberts or Bush?

Roberts.  Bush is an idiot.

I base my assumptions on the fact that no one, not even the Democrats, have questioned his integrity, character, or reputation.  If he had any sliver of a questionable history they (the Democrats) would have made dogmeat out of it.  Since they have not, and since there is also no reason to asume he is not a good man, it is logical to assume he is a good man.

[fredster]

So you think rural means mainstream?

Depends on what you think is "rural". 

I don't think what people think in Detroit, LA, NYC, or Chicago is mainstream.

[ChadTower]

Where I grew up, the main stream opens up into the marsh, which eventually opens up into the inlet, which opens up into the bay, which opens up into the Atlantic Ocean.

The big city is the ferry terminal, a couple restaurants and bars, a small hotel, and where the houses are on intersecting streets.  It is also where all the wharves are and where all the fishermen launch from and return to with their catches.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Since they have not, and since there is also no reason to asume he is not a good man, it is logical to assume he is a good man.

Well, I start off from the assumption that everyone is an @sshole...they then have to show that they are *not*. Most just end up proving me right. 

Where I grew up, the main stream opens up into the marsh...

See!   

mrC

[ChadTower]

The Humor is not with you today.

[Crazy Cooter]

Back to the topic...

If instead of "under god" it said "abortion is right" or "abortion is wrong", people would flip out.

[ChadTower]

I am not screaming about Muslims praying.

[Crazy Cooter]

The legal precedent was set a long time ago in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  It bars the government from taking actions that promote or endorse religion or a particular religious faith.

I swear I read somewhere that the guy only wanted the words "under god" removed (which is how it used to be receited), but somehow it turned into this.  Maybe not.  I don't understand why it was ever added anyhow.  What's the problem with removing it and going on with our daily lives?

[didn't mean you were screaming, people I know are  ]

[JackTucky]

And JackTucky, if your kids were in a class that said, "One nation under Satan...", or, "One atheist nation," something tells me that you would be singing a different tune.  Try stepping outside of your own shoes sometime.

You're wrong.  I don't believe in religion. My wife does.  She takes my kids with her.  So they believe.  If the pledge said Satan, my kids already have their own opinion.  They wouldn't like it.  They would come home and ask me why they say Satan.  I'd say, cause the pledge is wrong.  Say it anyway.  leave out the satan part.  Have a nice day at school.

Me, I wouldn't care either way.

No one can program my brain.  Now I want to go get a mountain dew so I can hang out with hot chicks playing volleyball all day.

Art

[ChadTower]

I swear I read somewhere that the guy only wanted the words "under god" removed (which is how it used to be receited), but somehow it turned into this.

[Crazy Cooter]

It was changed when "under god" was added, why can't it be changed back now that it's ruled to be in violation of the 1st amendment?

[ChadTower]

Because the pledge is not in violation of the first amendment.  Mandatory recitation of the pledge in public school was ruled in violation of the first amendment, not the pledge itself.  That is why mandatory recitation is going to be eliminated instead of having the pledge changed.

Without mandatory recitation, the pledge is just something people say, and is itself protected by that same first amendment.

[Crazy Cooter]

First Amendment:
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.

No law respecting an establishment of religion.  Therefore a law mandating recitation of the phrase "under god" violates the First Amendment.  A law mandating recitation of the rest of it does not.

So as currently written, the pledge violates the First Amendment because of the "under god" bit.  Take that out and you have a winner... just like it was before that part was added in.

[ChadTower]

It is the rule mandating recitation that was ruled unconstitutional.  They have two options:

Change the pledge or repeal the rule.

They have no power to change the pledge, therefore they must repeal the rule.

[Stingray]

This whole thread is going against my constitutional right to be frivilous. I'm going back to the cheerleader thread.

-S

[Crazy Cooter]

Ripped from another site:
...the Pledge was amended in 1954 to include the words "under God;" legislation to add the motto "In God We Trust" to all coins and currency was passed in 1955; and the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" [out of many, one] was changed to "In God We Trust" in 1956.

History (also ripped):
The resolution to change the Pledge was introduced into the House by Rep. Louis C. Rabaut. He proposed to add the words "under God" as "one nation, under God." Note the placement of the comma between "one nation" and "under God." As part of its deliberations, the House Judiciary Committee solicited an opinion for comma placement from the Library of Congress. Three proposals were considered:

one Nation, under God
one Nation under God
one Nation indivisible under God
The Library of Congress reported the following recommendation:

". . . Under the generally accepted rules of grammar, a modifier should normally be placed as close as possible to the word it modifies. In the present instance, this would indicate that the phrase 'under God,' being intended as a fundamental and basic characterization of our Nation, might well be put immediately following the word 'Nation.' Further, since the basic idea is a Nation founded on a belief in God, there would seem to be no reason for a comma after Nation; 'one Nation under God' thus becomes a single phrase, emphasizing precisely the idea desired by the authors . . ."

The Judiciary Committee and the House concurred with the Library of Congress, adopting the single phrase. The Senate co-sponsor of the resolution was Sen. Homer Ferguson, who said of the joint resolution during Senate debate, "Our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God . . ." Evidently, it was so important for this Congress to officially acknowledge the United States as a nation founded on a belief in a God, that even comma placement was debated to ensure the proper meaning was conveyed! With insertion of the words "under God," the Pledge has now become both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

It seems to me that someone should stand up in congress and say: "Kids should be given the opportunity to be patriotic.  If that means reverting back to the older version... then let's do it."

Anyhow the site is: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1999/May99/lynn.html and is a pretty quick read on the history behind the pledge.

[shmokes]

Thanks for that info.  I knew the dates and so on, but didn't know all that. 

One thing that irritates me is the people who refuse to consider my comments earlier as valid.  You've got JackTucky speculating on what it would be like to be an atheist or some other non-christian and how it wouldn't bother him at all.  He's an agnostic with no interest in it.  He doesn't see it as harmful.  But indifference is easy for someone who doesn't care about the issue.  Many people could not care less if an Amendment were passed nullifying the Second Amendment.  Indifference would be easy for them too.  Many people couldn't care less if every square inch of forest land in America were bulldozed and replaced with stucko mini-malls.  You think that just because this isn't an issue that happens to be important to you that it's not actually important?  If it's not important to you, why do you weigh in on the God people's side.  Why don't you say, "Well, it seems pretty reasonable to put it back the way it was intended, especially considering the serious question of constitutionality."

There's all kinds of people talking about how petty and whiny the anti-god people are being, but any one of you would fight tooth and nail against replacing the word God with something you fundamentally don't believe in or agree with, like Satan or changing it to "One atheist nation." 

Can you honestly say (this is to the God people, not JackTucky) that were it not the other way around...had Congress, in response to the fundamentalist soviet christian scare, CHANGED the pledge of allegiance in 1954 to say, "One Atheist Nation....," that you wouldn't be fighting to have that changed -- if not changed to "under God" at least removed so that it is religiously neutral. 

Would you really like to explain to your five or eight-year-old that, "Well, Billy, while you have to recite that in class, it just means that the Nation believes there is no God....Our family thinks there is one, though."

"But dad, why do we say we don't believe in God, if we do?"

"Well, it's just the pledge of allegience.  You don't have to say it."

"Uh huh....our class gets up and says it together every morning.  Mrs Patterson says to put our hands on our hearts.  Everybody says it."

"Yeah, but we believe that there IS a God Billy.  So you don't have to say it if you don't want to."

"Why don't they think there's a God?  Is it okay to say it if I want to....?"

"Well, of course, Billy.  It's okay to say it, but I want you to remember that there is a god and he loves you very much so you shouldn't say that part of it."

"What if people laugh at me?"

"Well, I think sometimes people laugh at kids for being different.  And they shouldn't do that, but it's more important to do what's right than to worry about what other kids think of you."

[HaRuMaN]

Personally, I reckon "one nation under Canada" solves the problem.

Canada's like a loft apartment over a great party...   

[ChadTower]

Honestly, I'd rather that they never placed that clause into the pledge to begin with.  This nation wasn't founded under god, it was founded on the right to worship as one chose, or just as importantly to not worship as one chose.

Of course, that didn't help all the natives that were slaughtered when they would not convert.