Religions > Atheism > Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2005 08:14:01 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge |
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
:|> On 28 Sep 2005 17:36:20 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|> >> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
:|> >> news:1127948120.245636.24110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:|> >> > Since the 1st Amendment prohibited only the federal government from
:|> >> > addressing religion, the 10th Amendment automatically delegated this
:|> >> > power uniquely to the states. The bottom line is that President
:|> >> > Eisenhower should have campaigned for the states to officially
:|> >> > incorporate "under God" into the Pledge instead of having Congress make
:|> >> > the law.
:|> >> >
:|> >>
:|> >>
:|> >> That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
:|> >> thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
:|> >> 1954.
:|> >
:|> >Although it is wrong to force people to recite the Pledge, I agree that
:|> >"under God" has no teeth whatsoever with respect to being a religious
:|> >endorsement.
:|>
:|> It does when the same legislatures publicly state the specific god is
:|> the judeochristian one.
:|If I understand you correctly, I agree that this may have been the case
:|before the 14th Amendment was written. But although I don't understand
:|how simply declaring that a specific god is the judeochristian one has
:|any kind of teeth, the 14th Amendment says that non-Christians can
:|simply ignore their legislatures when they say such things anyway.
Gee Fred would you be so kind as to point out exactly where the 14th says
what you say it says above.
Actually what fred does is substitutes law (the courts) with Alan Keyes
What a joke
You really should read the cases and actually set aside your biased
theocratic propaganda and try to understand what is being said and more
importantly why
This is the ruling by the 9th Circuit:
[it is Newdow II that is being appealed. Newdow II replaced Newdow I]
=======================================================
COMMENTS BY THOSE WHO FRAMED THE ACT OF 1954 (LEGISLATIVE INTENT)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/1a8f892a6f8858a?output=gplain===========================================================
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?T242123EB
*******************************************************************************************
NEWDOW I (JUNE 28 2002)
[10] In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words
"under God" to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD's policy and practice of
teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included,
violate the Establishment Clause. The judgment of dismissal is vacated with
respect to these two claims, and the cause is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs on
this appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS p. 9131
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf
------------------------------------------------------
NEWDOW II (FEBRUARY 28, 2003)
[9] In light of Supreme Court precedent, we hold that the school
district's policy and practice of teacher-led recitation
2812 NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS
of the Pledge, with the inclusion of the added words "under God," violates
the Establishment Clause. In addition to the relief that Newdow seeks
against the school district—relief to which he is entitled—Newdow seeks a
declaration as to the constitutionality of the 1954 Act. The district court
did not discuss that question because it dismissed Newdow's complaint on
the basis of its holding that the school district's policy did not violate
the First Amendment. Given our contrary holding, we must consider whether
to grant Newdow's claim for declaratory relief as to the Act. Normally,
whether to decide a claim for declaratory judgment is left to the
discretion of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); see also Government
Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1222-23 (9th Cir. 1998). We
doubt that, given the relief to which we decide Newdow is entitled, the
district court would have exercised its discretionary power to resolve, in
the present case, the additional issue as to which Newdow seeks declaratory
relief. Accordingly, we decline to reach that issue here.
[10] The judgment of dismissal is vacated with respect to Newdow's
claim that the school district's Pledge policy violates the Establishment
Clause and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs on this appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
THE NINTH CIRCUIT, NEWDOW v. .U.S. CONGRESS; No. 00-16423 Filed June 26,
2002 Amended February 28, 2003, p 2812
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1AC18E7FEB98DB6D88256CDB000AFCF4/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?S533225EB
However, the dissenting judge in Newdow II had this to say about it:
Even though they removed the comments about Congress acting
unconstitutionally the dissenting judge said this in NEWDOW II
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . 3 Perhaps in an effort to avoid ultimate Supreme Court review,
Newdow II which replaces it, avoids expressly reaching the technical
question of the constitutionality of the 1954 Act. Fundamentally, however,
the amended decision is every bit as hold as its predecessor. It bans the
voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools of
the nine western states thereby directly affecting over 9.6 million
students, 4 necessarily implies that both an Act of Congress5 and a
California law6 are unconstitutional, . . . "
O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, with whom KL EINFELD, GOULD, T ALLMAN, R
AW7.,INSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial
of rehearing en banc:
THE NINTH CIRCUIT, NEWDOW v. .U.S. CONGRESS; No. 00-16423 Filed June 26,
2002 Amended February 28, 2003, p 2781
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1AC18E7FEB98DB6D88256CDB000AFCF4
/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?S533225EB
Thus, in his mind, while any direct reference to the act by Congress being
unconstitutional (which it was, in that Newdow I was correct) it is now in
the background via being implied, in the opinion of the dissenting judge.
====================================================
On June 22, 1942, Congress first codified the Pledge as
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all." Pub. L. No. 623, Ch.
435, § 7, 56 Stat. 380 (1942) (codified at 36 U.S.C. § 1972).
On June 14, 1954, Congress amended Section 1972 to add the
words "under God" after the word "Nation." Pub. L. No. 396,
Ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249 (1954) ("1954 Act"). The Pledge is currently
codified as "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all." 4 U.S.C. § 4 (1998) (Title 36 was revised and
recodified by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 2(a), 112 Stat. 1494
(1998). Section 172 was abolished, and the Pledge is now
found in Title 4.)
SOURCE OF INFORMATION NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS p. 9111
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf
*************************************
US Code Title 4 chapter 1 Section 4
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/4.html
For a more complete reference, here is the relevant section from the
Newdow decision:
The classmates of Newdow' s daughter in the EGUSD are led by their
teacher in reciting the Pledge codified in federal law. On June 22,
1942, Congress first codified the Pledge as "I pledge allegiance to
the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all." Pub. L. No. 623, Ch. 435, § 7, 56 Stat. 380 (1942) (codified at
36 U.S.C. § 1972). On June 14, 1954, Congress amended Section 1972 to
add the words "under God" after the word "Nation." Pub. L. No. 396,
Ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249 (1954) ("1954 Act" ). The Pledge is currently
codified as "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 4 U.S.C. § 4
(1998) (Title 36 was revised and recodified by Pub. L. No. 105-225, §
2(a), 112 Stat. 1494 (1998). Section 172 was abolished, and the
Pledge is now found in Title 4.)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
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 |
Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge
Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge
Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge
Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge
Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge
Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge
Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge
Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge
| Re: The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge
Re: Forest Industry and workers Might not Benefit from $1 billion of federal money
Why A Federal District Court Was Wrong to Apply Strict Scrutiny to a Washington State Law Requiring Pharmacies, But Not Individual Pharmacists,
TOBS: Abiogenis important or not? \Tom Bethell remarks...
Re: The Bible said : we are all under the law of God, God demanding that we must follow the law. The law is not changing except the sacrifice law, because Jesus already die for us in the cross. If you love God you must follow his Law, because ever
Re: What Christianity does when it is not brutally controlled
OT: ERRRRRRR Can you say not exactly on the safe side?
|
|
|
