| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Sep 2005 08:28:08 PM |
| Object: |
Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN - NEWDOW |
"[ krp - ]" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
:| Here we go again. Mikey Newdow insisting that the Pledge be banned.
Yes he is, a wonderful idea too since it is unconstitutional
:\He
:|found a judge willing to go along with him.
Naaaaaaa. He actually a USSC Justice who agreed with him (Thomas) Two 9th
Circuit Judges of a 3 judge panel (with the full 9th Circuit refusing to
hold a en banc hearing thus leaving the 3 judge panel ruling stand and now
a federal district judge. In short, he has found more judges who agreed it
is unconstitutional than have found otherwise so far.
:|There is more than a 100%
:|certainty that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold it as the
:|farthest left wing court in America. It is also fairly certain that the
:|Supreme Court will reject it again.
Actually that isn't certain at all. If it is appealed to the 9th Circuit
you could have 3 different judges hear it this time, they could rule
differently. That would be interesting to say the least
:| There is no reason for panic because this won't endure. But this
:|situation brings, in my mind., two things forward for consideration. The
:|first is how out of control some Judges are. That's a different topic for
:|another day and place. But the main issue I see is how a SMALL group of
:|very angry people want to control society. Because they are mean? Probably
:|not. But because they are ARROGANT! They are spoiled children who are badly
:|in need of parental discipline. (They need to be spanked.)
LOL.
:| There is NO logical way that the words "In God we trust" establishes a
:|religion. NONE!
Sorry dude but the wording is ". . make no law RESPECTING an establishment
of religion. . . :
The wording is not make no law establishing religion.
Next a court has spoken and no couret higher than that court has overurled
waht that court said
Your opinion is totally meaningless. it does not trump the court opinion.
In additions, you reputation as a blow hard is well known, thus you have no
credibility
Have a wonderful day
[snip]
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
