"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|"Smitty Jagermanjenson" <olj@wonet.com> wrote in message
:|news:or47b.12801$98.11818@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
:|>
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
:|> news:vlpekm578g7r08@corp.supernews.com...
:|> >
:|> > "Smitty Jagermanjenson" <olj@wonet.com> wrote in message
:|> > news:lN17b.12370$98.5023@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
:|> > > "Norm Snick" <normsnick@bigvalley.net> wrote in message
:|> > > news:uk07b.1488$if4.1086492@newshog.newsread.com...
:|> > > > CONGRESS DECLARES BIBLE
:|> > > > "THE WORD OF GOD"
:|> > > >
:|> > > > PUBLIC LAW 97-280 < OCT. 4, 1982
:|> > > >
:|> > > > Public Law 97-280
:|> > > > 97th Congress
:|> > > > 96 STAT. 1211
:|> > > >
:|> > > > Joint Resolution
:|> > >
:|> > > Two things. A joint resolution is not a law, and no one paid a bit of
:|> > > attention to it - outside of the loonies who wanted it.
:|> > >
:|> > >
:|> >
:|> > So, is it a good test if the consideration is that just a few loonies
:|paid
:|> > attention?
:|> >
:|> > I might be wrong, but didn't the Pledge pass in 1954 by a joint
:|> resolution?
:|>
:|> Yes you are wrong. You never disappoint in your ability to comment on
:|> something without looking into the facts, preffering to go on an
:|assumption
:|> rather than thode peky details.
:|>
:|> > It seems that the joint resolution setting the Pledge is bad law because
:|> > more than a few loonies paid attention, but the Year of the Bible is OK
:|> > because nobody noticed?
:|>
:|
:|
:|You are the one that said it, not me.
:|
:|Let me remind you of exactly what you posted ...
:|
:|"Two things. A joint resolution is not a law, and no one paid a bit of
:|attention to it - outside of the loonies who wanted it."
:|
:|To say the same thing another way, The resolution that declared 1983 as the
:|Year of the Bible was OK because nobody noticed, yet the Pledge is a bad law
:|because everybody noticed. Your words, not mine.
:|
Here jeffy, see if you can understand this. I realize it will be hard but
if you really try hard maybe you can get it.
From: "Smitty Jagermanjenson" <olj@wonet.com>
Two things. A joint resolution is not a law, and no one paid a bit of
attention to it - outside of the loonies who wanted it.
***************************************
Just for you I'll break it down into smaller chunks.
(a) a joint resolution is not law
(b) no one paid a bit of attention to it - outside of the loonies who
wanted it.
Got it? In case you don't (a) was the essential element of the comment.
*******************************************
Buckeye-ELO wrote:
Why don't you look it up Jeffy?
Why even mention it if you don't know?
You don't even know if a resolution and law are the same thing but you have
already moved on assuming they are one and the same.
Adding "under God" to the pledge was passed by LAW, jeffy
Here jeffy, something to keep you busy:
FROM BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY
Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method
according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law,
in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by
controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be
obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences
is a law. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of
the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.
The "law" of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional
enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statute law,
in rulings of its courts (i.e. case law).
Resolution. A formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body
or a public assembly, adopted by vote; as a legislative resolution. Such
may be either a simple, joint or concurrent resolution.
The term is usually employed to denote the adoption of a motion, the
subject-matter of which would not properly constitute a statute, such as a
mere expression of opinion; an alteration of the rules; a vote of thanks or
of censure, etc. Such is not law but merely a form in which a legislative
body expresses an opinion.
The chief distinction between a "resolution" and a "law" is that the former
is used whenever the legislative body passing it wishes merely to express
an opinion as to some given matter or thing and is only to have a temporary
effect on such particular thing, while by a "law" it is intended to
permanently direct and control matters applying to persons or things in
general.
*******************************************
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
I previously posted the following:
"Under God" was inserted into the Pledge in 1954 by way of a law signed by
Eisenhower.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled.htm
A law is a law. Therefore, your statement is in error. Not only that,
but the main purpose of the law of which I speak was religious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the
dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." President
Eisenhower (1954) after signing into law a bill to have "under God" added
to the original pledge. 1
Read the decision in the Newdow case. I am sure Jim will be glad to tell
you where that is.
Meanwhile:
http://candst.tripod.com/rcntcass.htm
http://65.18.154.108/
http://65.18.154.108/The_Pledge/the_pledge.html
http://65.18.154.108/Resources/resources.html
*********************************************
After having three people reply to you setting the record straight, here
is what you come back with:
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|You are the one that said it, not me.
:|
:|Let me remind you of exactly what you posted ...
:|
:|"Two things. A joint resolution is not a law, and no one paid a bit of
:|attention to it - outside of the loonies who wanted it."
:|
:|To say the same thing another way, The resolution that declared 1983 as the
:|Year of the Bible was OK because nobody noticed, yet the Pledge is a bad law
:|because everybody noticed. Your words, not mine.
(1) The joint resolution was MEANINGLESS.
(2) It was a resolution, NOT LAW.
(3) It was politicians playing politics for votes again.
(4) Nobody cared a damn about it except the radical religious right that
wanted it passed.
(5) Another effort of theirs to try and form unions between church
(religion) and state (govt.)
(6) it had no authority, it was not legally binding on anything, etc, so
even for those who wanted it, it was pretty hollow.
The Pledge, however, was passed as LAW.
Now, see if you can distinguish the difference:
LAW
That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method
according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law,
in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by
controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be
obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences
is a law. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of
the State. Calif.Civil Code, § 22.
The "law" of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional
enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statute law,
in rulings of its courts (i.e. case law).
RESOLUTION
A formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body
or a public assembly, adopted by vote; as a legislative resolution. Such
may be either a simple, joint or concurrent resolution.
The term is usually employed to denote the adoption of a motion, the
subject-matter of which would not properly constitute a statute, such as a
mere expression of opinion; an alteration of the rules; a vote of thanks or
of censure, etc. Such is not law but merely a form in which a legislative
body expresses an opinion.
The chief distinction between a "resolution" and a "law" is that the former
is used whenever the legislative body passing it wishes merely to express
an opinion as to some given matter or thing and is only to have a temporary
effect on such particular thing, while by a "law" it is intended to
permanently direct and control matters applying to persons or things in
general.
POLITICIANS, play politics everyday. They do little things to masturbate
those "citizens" they want voting for them.
Religion is usually a very good toy to use,so politicians play the religion
card frequently.
One way to do this is by passing resolutions. They are safe and most of
those sheepish "citizens" don't know they are hollow and meaningless. So it
plays good, it get the politician many brownie points.
Laws, however are a totally different horse of another color, they do mean
something. Even the most ridiculous law means something. Law always carry
weight that resolutions don't have.
Now, focus on the above and you might just understand, though I don't have
a lot of faith in that
.
|
