Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE

Sociology > Education > Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Sociology > Education
User:	""
Date:	15 Jun 2004 05:27:55 AM
Object:	Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE

"Mike P" <res1yj7x@verizon.net> wrote:

:|I believe it was based on a technicality, and nothing else. It's being
:|refilled as we speak.

Do you have a site for that?
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	15 Jun 2004 06:18:15 AM

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jmjtc0l7hfd69kn5raub54525tufbcqufr@4ax.com...

"Mike P" <res1yj7x@verizon.net> wrote:

:|I believe it was based on a technicality, and nothing else. It's being
:|refilled as we speak.

Do you have a site for that?

As jailbird prove he knows nothing about the Constitution.
Once the USSC hears a case, there is no longer any appeal you can do.

User: "LeMod Pol"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	15 Jun 2004 03:01:56 PM

Dana wrote:

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jmjtc0l7hfd69kn5raub54525tufbcqufr@4ax.com...

"Mike P" <res1yj7x@verizon.net> wrote:

:|I believe it was based on a technicality, and nothing else. It's being
:|refilled as we speak.

Do you have a site for that?

As jailbird prove he knows nothing about the Constitution.
Once the USSC hears a case, there is no longer any appeal
you can do.

It can be refiled provided the mother or other legal
guardian with "status" file it de novo.
While I have not seen the judgment, it appears the
court only decided that Newdow did not have "status" to
act on behalf of his son, therefore the case is moot.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.

User: "Dave Thompson"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	15 Jun 2004 03:11:22 PM

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:40CF558B.FBF7A752@igs.net...

Dana wrote:

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jmjtc0l7hfd69kn5raub54525tufbcqufr@4ax.com...

"Mike P" <res1yj7x@verizon.net> wrote:

:|I believe it was based on a technicality, and nothing else. It's

being

:|refilled as we speak.

Do you have a site for that?

As jailbird prove he knows nothing about the Constitution.
Once the USSC hears a case, there is no longer any appeal
you can do.

It can be refiled provided the mother or other legal
guardian with "status" file it de novo.

While I have not seen the judgment, it appears the
court only decided that Newdow did not have "status" to
act on behalf of his son, therefore the case is moot.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

Don't you find it hypocritical and completely dishonest that the same people
who were insisting that "under god" in the pledge was not an establishment
of religion and was a historical rather than religious statement are now
proclaiming victory because their divine god was saved from omission from
the pledge.
Funny little dudes, huh?
.

User: "LeMod Pol"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	15 Jun 2004 03:52:28 PM

Dave Thompson wrote:

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:40CF558B.FBF7A752@igs.net...

Dana wrote:

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jmjtc0l7hfd69kn5raub54525tufbcqufr@4ax.com...

"Mike P" <res1yj7x@verizon.net> wrote:

:|I believe it was based on a technicality, and nothing else. It's

being

:|refilled as we speak.

Do you have a site for that?

As jailbird prove he knows nothing about the Constitution.
Once the USSC hears a case, there is no longer any appeal
you can do.

It can be refiled provided the mother or other legal
guardian with "status" file it de novo.

While I have not seen the judgment, it appears the
court only decided that Newdow did not have "status" to
act on behalf of his son, therefore the case is moot.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

I am not trying to keep score on this one. Everybody
is somewhat ambivalent here, except the atheists, who
basically are naysayers on any and all topics, but they
love revisionism, conspiracies etc.
Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d and thus
dodges the establishment problem, rather neatly.
The problem really arises because less than 10% of the
people really know and understand The First Amendment.
Amendment I
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.
That one sentence covers a whole lot of ground, so I
divided it into its' five parts, each having equal
weight and significance
Perhaps more people would understand it if it were
written thusly:-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion;
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free
exercise thereof;
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press;
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the
people peaceably to assemble;
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the
people to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
<G>
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.

User: "Gregory Franklyn"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	05 Jul 2004 11:31:38 AM

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:40CF615E.DE749E34@igs.net...

Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d and thus
dodges the establishment problem, rather neatly.

I tend to disagree with the term "GOD" being seen as generic. Perhaps
Jodeo-Christian religion is SO pervasive in western culture that we don't
notice that Judeo-Christian religions are the ONLY ones who refer to their
supreme being using the word "God". All other religions use the specific
terms ie. Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Allah, etc. I believe that the use of the
word "GOD" does favor one specific religion over another.
The phraze "Under God" was added to the pledge after the fact as a test of
patriotism. The theory was that anyone who is an atheist/communist could not
pledge allegience to the US because of their religious beliefs, or lack
thereof and could, therefore, be "rooted out" from the herd. To me, that
respects the establishment of Judeo-Christian religions. But then again, I'm
not one of the Supremes.
Gregory
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	05 Jul 2004 11:47:57 AM

"Gregory Franklyn" <gregoryf@zcloud.net> wrote in message
news:10ej0je8n5qn066@corp.supernews.com...

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:40CF615E.DE749E34@igs.net...

Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d and thus
dodges the establishment problem, rather neatly.

I tend to disagree with the term "GOD" being seen as generic.

That is your problem.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	05 Jul 2004 01:08:23 PM

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:47:57 GMT, "Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote:

"Gregory Franklyn" <gregoryf@zcloud.net> wrote in message
news:10ej0je8n5qn066@corp.supernews.com...

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:40CF615E.DE749E34@igs.net...

Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d and thus
dodges the establishment problem, rather neatly.

I tend to disagree with the term "GOD" being seen as generic.

That is your problem.

and here's YOURS, Buttmaster
========================================================================================================

From:

(

)Subject: golden/brown showers

View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30
swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
showers. will worship feet and *****. trampling and smothering ok
also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------

User: "LeMod Pol"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	05 Jul 2004 04:20:03 PM

Gregory Franklyn wrote:

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:40CF615E.DE749E34@igs.net...

Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d and thus
dodges the establishment problem, rather neatly.

not at all true - that is only the english name for
the divine. jews are forbidden to speak the name of
the Divine, and so use a number of pseudonyms (G-d,
Hashem, etc) depending on the language spoken. Xians
might use Dieu, Gott, Deus, Dominum, etc.
So you have jumped into a dead thread without really
knowing whereof you speak.
A propos your previous post. Those absolutist xians
either have not read their bibles through or they are
using badly edited 3rd or 4th hand translations,
because there are more than one description of the
'Creation' in Genesis
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.

User: "Katherine Griffis-Greenberg"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	06 Jul 2004 12:01:00 AM

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:20:03 -0400, LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> in
misc.legal, wrote the following:

Orthodox Jews of my acquaintance tend to _write_ the name of the Deity
as G-d, as it is holy in their view. Other viewpoints within the
Orthodox tradition disagree. However, as far as I understand Orthodox
tradition, they may _say_ the name of the Supreme Being as "God" in
speech, or written in terms such as "Adonai," "Hashem", etc.
The general rule set in Mishnah appears to be that if the Name is
written in "...Lashon Chol (a secular language) it is not the Name at
all, for it is permitted to erase the name that was written in a secular
language, such as 'Gott' in German, or 'Bog' in Polish or Russian, etc."
In everyday usage, most Jews of Conservative and Reform persuasion both
say and write the term for the Divine as "God."
For a discussion on Shemot, see
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v7/index.html#VDW
"Shemot" (Issues (32) (37) (42) (58) (77) (84) (90) (93) (99) ).
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is
left free to combat it."
(Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801)
DISCLAIMER:
Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	15 Jun 2004 05:31:31 PM

In article <40CF615E.DE749E34@igs.net> LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> writes:
<
<
<Dave Thompson wrote:
<>
<> "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
<> news:40CF558B.FBF7A752@igs.net...
<> >
<> >
<> > Dana wrote:
<> > >
<> > > <buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
<> > > news:jmjtc0l7hfd69kn5raub54525tufbcqufr@4ax.com...
<> > > > "Mike P" <res1yj7x@verizon.net> wrote:
<> > > > >:|I believe it was based on a technicality, and nothing else. It's
<> being
<> > > > >:|refilled as we speak.
<> > > >
<> > > > Do you have a site for that?
<> > >
<> > > As jailbird prove he knows nothing about the Constitution.
<> > > Once the USSC hears a case, there is no longer any appeal
<> > > you can do.
<> >
<> > It can be refiled provided the mother or other legal
<> > guardian with "status" file it de novo.
<> >
<> > While I have not seen the judgment, it appears the
<> > court only decided that Newdow did not have "status" to
<> > act on behalf of his son, therefore the case is moot.
<> > --
<> > LP
<> > In politics, moderation is the best policy
<>
<> Don't you find it hypocritical and completely dishonest that the same people
<> who were insisting that "under god" in the pledge was not an establishment
<> of religion and was a historical rather than religious statement are now
<> proclaiming victory because their divine god was saved from omission from
<> the pledge.
<
<I am not trying to keep score on this one. Everybody
<is somewhat ambivalent here, except the atheists, who
<basically are naysayers on any and all topics, but they
<love revisionism, conspiracies etc.
Nice conspiracy theory you got there.
<
<Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d and thus
<dodges the establishment problem, rather neatly.
It implies a single god. For many religions, that's
a heresy.
-- cary
.

User: "LeMod Pol"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	15 Jun 2004 09:24:08 PM

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <40CF615E.DE749E34@igs.net> LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> writes:
<
<
<Dave Thompson wrote:
<>
<> "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
<> news:40CF558B.FBF7A752@igs.net...
<> >
<> >
<> > Dana wrote:
<> > >
<> > > <buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
<> > > news:jmjtc0l7hfd69kn5raub54525tufbcqufr@4ax.com...
<> > >
<> > > As jailbird prove he knows nothing about the Constitution.
<> > > Once the USSC hears a case, there is no longer any appeal
<> > > you can do.
<> >
<> > It can be refiled provided the mother or other legal
<> > guardian with "status" files it de novo.
<> >
<> > While I have not seen the judgment, it appears the
<> > court only decided that Newdow did not have "status" to
<> > act on behalf of his son, therefore the case is moot.
<> > --
<> > LP
<> > In politics, moderation is the best policy
<>
<> Don't you find it hypocritical and completely dishonest that the same people
<> who were insisting that "under god" in the pledge was not an establishment
<> of religion and was a historical rather than religious statement are now
<> proclaiming victory because their divine god was saved from omission from
<> the pledge.
<
<I am not trying to keep score on this one. Everybody
<is somewhat ambivalent here, except the atheists, who
<basically are naysayers on any and all topics, but they
<love revisionism, conspiracies etc.

Nice conspiracy theory you got there.

Where???

<
<Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d and thus
<dodges the establishment problem, rather neatly.

It implies a single god.

It does???
For many religions, that's

a heresy.

What religions?
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	15 Jun 2004 11:34:00 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, LeMod Pol wrote:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <40CF615E.DE749E34@igs.net> LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> writes:
<Dave Thompson wrote:
<> "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
<> news:40CF558B.FBF7A752@igs.net...
<I am not trying to keep score on this one. Everybody
<is somewhat ambivalent here, except the atheists, who
<basically are naysayers on any and all topics, but they
<love revisionism, conspiracies etc.
Nice conspiracy theory you got there.

Where???

You've got to be kidding.

<Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d and thus
<dodges the establishment problem, rather neatly.
It implies a single god.

It does???

You've GOT to be kidding.

For many religions, that's a heresy.

What religions?

You've G O T to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!11
Not mentioned above, many very religious people think it is very, very
wrong to utter the word "God," or to write it.
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson

.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	16 Jun 2004 01:14:25 PM

In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.1040615233117.23721U-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> writes:
<On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, LeMod Pol wrote:
<
<> Cary Kittrell wrote:
<
<> > In article <40CF615E.DE749E34@igs.net> LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> writes:
<
<> > <Dave Thompson wrote:
<
<> > <> "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
<> > <> news:40CF558B.FBF7A752@igs.net...
<
<> > <I am not trying to keep score on this one. Everybody
<> > <is somewhat ambivalent here, except the atheists, who
<> > <basically are naysayers on any and all topics, but they
<> > <love revisionism, conspiracies etc.
<
<> > Nice conspiracy theory you got there.
<
<> Where???
<
<You've got to be kidding.
<
<> > <Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d and thus
<> > <dodges the establishment problem, rather neatly.
<
<> > It implies a single god.
<
<> It does???
<
<You've GOT to be kidding.
<
<> > For many religions, that's a heresy.
<
<> What religions?
<
<You've G O T to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!11
<
<Not mentioned above, many very religious people think it is very, very
<wrong to utter the word "God," or to write it.
And since our esteemed poster himself seems to avoid eve
typing the word, I'm wondering if he also avoids saying
it as well? And in either case, how he could support
the government's endorsement of his kids chanting it?
-- cary
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	16 Jun 2004 12:59:00 PM

LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:

:|Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d and thus
:|dodges the establishment problem, rather neatly.

The legislative history makes it very clear what "God" was referred to. In
addition, I think several people have presented more than enough evidence
showing that the term "God" refers to the Christian God.
The 9th found that it endorsed monotheism which is a violation of the
Establishment Clause.
While this current ruling by the USSC wipes out the 9th on a technicality,
"technicaly speaking" the review of law presented in that ruling and the
rationale given in that ruling have not been shown to be incorrect and will
be presented as argument in any future case.
In short they have as much value, if not more than any argument the
opposing side might offer.

:|The problem really arises because less than 10% of the
:|people really know and understand The First Amendment.

Oh? hmmm, who might these 10% be?
.

User: "Mike Lepore"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	18 Jun 2004 02:01:22 PM

To me, the reference to God is a minor problem.
The real attrocity is the Orwellian practice of having
children take a loyalty oath to the state.
.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	15 Jun 2004 10:07:43 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, LeMod Pol wrote:

Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d

I am.
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	15 Jun 2004 10:16:08 PM

"Carol Lee Smith" <gapingholeslut@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1040615220713.23721F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, LeMod Pol wrote:

Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d

I am.

Yes we know you are a *****.
.

User: "Dave Thompson"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	15 Jun 2004 11:50:39 PM

"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message
news:e9a493423da8ec9ed63985a13c46cf2f@news.meganetnews.com...

"Carol Lee Smith" <gapingholeslut@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1040615220713.23721F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, LeMod Pol wrote:

Actually the pledge does not say who's g-d

I am.

Yes we know you are a *****.

You're right, because I am god. You and her are just being deceived. Be
careful, you might not wake up tonight and then you'll have to deal with me.
Bow down and atone. Tomorrow you might be mine.
Carol and I have worked out a deal, so she can sleep well.
.

User: "Rico X. Partay"
Title: Flash! God's grammar sucks!	16 Jun 2004 05:15:57 PM

"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:10cvkd5ip6aslbd@corp.supernews.com...

You're right, because I am god. You
and her are just being deceived.

God would never confuse the nominative and objective cases
like that.
.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Flash! God's grammar sucks!	16 Jun 2004 10:16:06 PM

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Rico X. Partay wrote:

"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:10cvkd5ip6aslbd@corp.supernews.com...

You're right, because I am god. You
and her are just being deceived.

God would never confuse the nominative
and objective cases like that.

You are right.
I wouldn't.
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson

.

User: ""
Title: Re: Flash! God's grammar sucks!	18 Jun 2004 01:37:46 AM

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:16:06 -0500, Carol Lee Smith
<human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Rico X. Partay wrote:

"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:10cvkd5ip6aslbd@corp.supernews.com...

You're right, because I am god. You
and her are just being deceived.

God would never confuse the nominative
and objective cases like that.

You are right.

I wouldn't.

"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson

". . . And thence its plunge into the abysmal depths of the
manipulated Bush, where wrong is right and right is anything he cares
to say it is."
- Any Sane Non-American With Eyes.

User: ""
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	15 Jun 2004 03:35:55 PM

LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:

Three Justices actually ruled on "merit."
However five justices by-passed that and shot the case down on the
"technicality of the escape they gave themselves, the standing issue.
I think it comes out to be close to or an actual draw. I think that were
one to add up all the judges, who along the way ruled he had standing and
those who ruled he didn't it comes out to be close to or an actual tie.
The truth of the matter is, they could have done anything they wanted to do
with the standing issue. They could have ruled he had standing as easily as
they ruled he didn't.
As it was, it served it's purpose, it was an escape clause.
Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas ruled that "under God" was constitutional
Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer ruled basically "no case"
since Newdow "didn't have standing."
Thus it could very easily have been a 5-3 ruling in favor of Newdow, had
they not elected to take the easy way out.
Although this guy is biased in some areas and has some facts incorrect he
does give a good assessment of the problem the court found itself in and
how Newdow had manipulated the court:
The National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/munoz200406091109.asp
Doing Newdow Justice
The case for Court consistency.
By Vincent Phillip Mu�oz
In the next few weeks, the Supreme Court will decide the Newdow case,
ruling on whether public-school teachers may include the words "under God"
when leading students in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is by no means clear
that the Court will sustain the Pledge � and even if it wanted to,
precedents would make such a decision legally problematic.
In June 2002, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled "under God"
unconstitutional in public schools, it seemed inevitable that the decision
would be overturned. Soon after the ruling came down, Sen. John Kerry
reportedly said on Boston television that it was "half-a**ed
justice...That's not the establishment of religion." Congress agreed,
quickly passing resolutions condemning the ruling by margins of 401-5 in
the House and 99-0 in the Senate.
The justices, however, cannot be as dismissive as John Kerry and his
colleagues. Over the last 20 years, the Court has generally employed two
doctrines to adjudicate establishment-clause disputes:
the "endorsement" test and the "coercion" test.
The endorsement test prohibits the government from explicitly endorsing
religion, purportedly to keep it religiously neutral. In the context of
public schooling, however, "no endorsement" quickly becomes outright
hostility. Activities that a child might perceive to favor religion must be
prohibited. If rigorously applied, the test requires the elimination of
religious language and symbols from the classroom, including the removal of
the words "under God" from the Pledge.
The coercion test forbids the state from coercing religious practice. That
standard may seem narrow, but in 1992 the Court prohibited
non-denominational invocations and benedictions at public-school
graduations because such exercises "psychologically coerce" students to
participate in a religious exercise. Applying the same rule in 2000, it
struck down the Texas tradition of nondenominational prayer before
high-school football games, because, it said, some fans might feel like
"outsiders."
Thus interpreted, the coercion test secures "the right not to be made
uncomfortable" by others publicly expressing their religious beliefs. Like
the endorsement test, its reasoning calls for the curtailment of
expressions of religious sentiment in public-school settings.
To his credit, Michael Newdow � the lawyer who filed the pending litigation
studied the law and shrewdly brought the perfect case. He has backed the
Court into a corner, pushing their accepted doctrines to their logical
extreme.
Given its precedents, what can the Court do?
It could start by rejecting the arguments advanced by the pro-Pledge
lawyers. They sought to dismiss the case by denying Newdow standing to sue.
They also claimed that by long repetition the Pledge is no longer
religious. "Under God," they argued, only recalls the political philosophy
of our Founding Fathers, who believed that our rights and freedom come from
God.
If the Court dismisses the case on the technical grounds of standing, a new
lawsuit would be filed immediately. Sooner or later, the Court will have to
decide the case on its merits. It might as well do so now, and avoid
another round of costly litigation.
To suggest that the phrase only harkens back to history ignores the fact
that the recitation is personal and in the present tense, not to mention
that there is nothing in the text of the Pledge itself to suggest that it
refers to any element of American history. To say that the words have lost
their meaning or that they are not religious undermines the very reason for
saying them.
This leaves the Court with only two intellectually honest options.
If it insists on maintaining its precedents, it should strike down "under
God" as an impermissible "endorsement" that "psychologically coerces"
religious practices. The decision would create a political firestorm, but
the Court has the duty to articulate a clear and consistent interpretation
of the Constitution regardless of popular will.
Alternatively, the Court could "fess up" and admit that it has previously
misconstrued the meaning of the First Amendment's ban on religious
establishments. The Founders meant to prohibit things like the employment
and appointment of clergy by the state, limiting public office to members
of the established religion, and the licensing and regulation of dissenting
religious ministers. Given this background, the Court could admit that its
endorsement and coercion tests have long been off the mark. It then could
adopt a more historically accurate test that would allow the Pledge.
Whatever it decides, the Court should be honest. Intellectual consistency
demands that it either follow its precedents and strike down "under God,"
or abandon them in order to uphold the Pledge. Anything less would reveal
the Court to be exercising arbitrary will, not judgment.
Anything less would be, in John Kerry's words, "half-a**ed justice."
� Vincent Phillip Mu�oz is a Civitas Fellow at the
<http://www.aei.org>American Enterprise Institute and an assistant
professor of political science at North Carolina State University.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

User: "RTO Trainer"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	16 Jun 2004 07:33:09 AM

wrote in message news:<eanuc0561r9l4ca8dpi3sknmnp1jmkuafj@4ax.com>...

LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:

:|
:|
:|Dana wrote:
:|>
:|> <

Why do you think it follows that the no standing finding was a way to
avoid a constitutional finding?
If I'd been on the Court, I'd have felt compelled to find no standing
if only to keep other such cases from finding their way to the Court.
I beleive that the three who pomulgated opinions on the merits did so
only because they knew that there was little fear of overturn on a
better formed appeal in a new case, (Though I can't cite any specific
support for that) making a unanimous, or a greater majority, decision
unnecessary and they can still supply dicta on the issue. The Court
often agrees on how to disagree even when split on the issue before
them.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	16 Jun 2004 02:00:00 PM

(RTO Trainer) wrote:

:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<eanuc0561r9l4ca8dpi3sknmnp1jmkuafj@4ax.com>...
:|> LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Dana wrote:
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> <buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|> >:|> news:jmjtc0l7hfd69kn5raub54525tufbcqufr@4ax.com...
:|> >:|> > "Mike P" <res1yj7x@verizon.net> wrote:
:|> >:|> > >:|I believe it was based on a technicality, and nothing else. It's being
:|> >:|> > >:|refilled as we speak.
:|> >:|> >
:|> >:|> > Do you have a site for that?
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> As jailbird prove he knows nothing about the Constitution.
:|> >:|> Once the USSC hears a case, there is no longer any appeal
:|> >:|> you can do.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|It can be refiled provided the mother or other legal
:|> >:|guardian with "status" file it de novo.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|While I have not seen the judgment, it appears the
:|> >:|court only decided that Newdow did not have "status" to
:|> >:|act on behalf of his son, therefore the case is moot.
:|>
:|> Three Justices actually ruled on "merit."
:|> However five justices by-passed that and shot the case down on the
:|> "technicality of the escape they gave themselves, the standing issue.
:|>
:|> I think it comes out to be close to or an actual draw. I think that were
:|> one to add up all the judges, who along the way ruled he had standing and
:|> those who ruled he didn't it comes out to be close to or an actual tie.
:|>
:|> The truth of the matter is, they could have done anything they wanted to do
:|> with the standing issue. They could have ruled he had standing as easily as
:|> they ruled he didn't.
:|>
:|> As it was, it served it's purpose, it was an escape clause.
:|>
:|> Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas ruled that "under God" was constitutional
:|>
:|> Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer ruled basically "no case"
:|> since Newdow "didn't have standing."
:|>
:|> Thus it could very easily have been a 5-3 ruling in favor of Newdow, had
:|> they not elected to take the easy way out.
:|
:|Why do you think it follows that the no standing finding was a way to
:|avoid a constitutional finding?

I already explained that.

:|If I'd been on the Court, I'd have felt compelled to find no standing
:|if only to keep other such cases from finding their way to the Court.

Such cases as what.
Challenging something that is unconstitutional?
Why are you afraid of that.
BTW, the court frequently looks for ways to avoid deciding
constitutionality
Don't take my word for it:
Thoughts on Power, Ceremonial Deism & Public Religion
From a Variety of Sources
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/c-deism.htm
[EXCERPT]
From the Modern Era
Setting the stage
F. Judicial Techniques in Constitutional Litigation
� 15:33. Avoiding the constitutional issue
The United States Supreme Court has often announced that it will not
decide constitutional issues unless doing so is unavoidable." It said, for
instance, in 1952: "This Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of
an act of Congress . . . unless such adjudication is unavoidable . . . ."
The same judicial abstinence customarily prevails with reference to acts of
the state legislatures, as well as to executive decisions and procedures at
trial. "Constitutional adjudication should where possible be avoided," says
the court.
The Supreme Court avoids constitutional issues frequently by deciding
cases on nonconstitutional grounds, rather than on the claims of
unconstitutionality. For example, in 1948, the court decided that judicial
enforcement of racially restrictive covenants in the District of Columbia
violated national public policy, rather than the Fifth Amendment. Said the
court: "It is a well settled principle that this court will not decide
constitutional questions where other grounds are available and dispositive
of the issues of the case."1 The Supreme Court will, if possible, decide
cases on nonconstitutional grounds even when such grounds were not raised
by the parties. (Internal citations and footnotes omitted, supplied upon
request)
Source of Information: Modern Constitutional Law, Volume II, The States and
the Federal Government, Chester L. Antieau, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing.
(1969) p. 687.
==================================================
You might enjoy this too:
Latest Developments in the Pledge Case
As of March 28, 2004
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/pledge2.htm
.

User: "RTO Trainer"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	16 Jun 2004 08:28:35 PM

wrote in message news:<pn51d05gtaikosmbh0u0lrbjl9ck0cvn7d@4ax.com>...

bill.white@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer) wrote:

wrote in message news:<eanuc0561r9l4ca8dpi3sknmnp1jmkuafj@4ax.com>...
:|> LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Dana wrote:
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> <

> wrote in message
:|> >:|> news:jmjtc0l7hfd69kn5raub54525tufbcqufr@4ax.com...
:|> >:|> > "Mike P" <res1yj7x@verizon.net> wrote:
:|> >:|> > >:|I believe it was based on a technicality, and nothing else. It's being
:|> >:|> > >:|refilled as we speak.
:|> >:|> >
:|> >:|> > Do you have a site for that?
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> As jailbird prove he knows nothing about the Constitution.
:|> >:|> Once the USSC hears a case, there is no longer any appeal
:|> >:|> you can do.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|It can be refiled provided the mother or other legal
:|> >:|guardian with "status" file it de novo.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|While I have not seen the judgment, it appears the
:|> >:|court only decided that Newdow did not have "status" to
:|> >:|act on behalf of his son, therefore the case is moot.
:|>
:|> Three Justices actually ruled on "merit."
:|> However five justices by-passed that and shot the case down on the
:|> "technicality of the escape they gave themselves, the standing issue.
:|>
:|> I think it comes out to be close to or an actual draw. I think that were
:|> one to add up all the judges, who along the way ruled he had standing and
:|> those who ruled he didn't it comes out to be close to or an actual tie.
:|>
:|> The truth of the matter is, they could have done anything they wanted to do
:|> with the standing issue. They could have ruled he had standing as easily as
:|> they ruled he didn't.
:|>
:|> As it was, it served it's purpose, it was an escape clause.
:|>
:|> Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas ruled that "under God" was constitutional
:|>
:|> Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer ruled basically "no case"
:|> since Newdow "didn't have standing."
:|>
:|> Thus it could very easily have been a 5-3 ruling in favor of Newdow, had
:|> they not elected to take the easy way out.
:|
:|Why do you think it follows that the no standing finding was a way to
:|avoid a constitutional finding?

I already explained that.

I don't see the explanation.

:|If I'd been on the Court, I'd have felt compelled to find no standing
:|if only to keep other such cases from finding their way to the Court.

Such cases as what.
Challenging something that is unconstitutional?
Why are you afraid of that.

Why would you look for a hidden meaning? Such cases where an
individual did not have proper standing (the reason the case was not
considered on the merits).

BTW, the court frequently looks for ways to avoid deciding
constitutionality

They do. They also try to make certain that only cases come to them
that have followed proper procedures. One should check for this
before deciding that the reason was the issue itself.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	18 Jun 2004 09:08:28 AM

(RTO Trainer) wrote:

:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<pn51d05gtaikosmbh0u0lrbjl9ck0cvn7d@4ax.com>...
:|>

(RTO Trainer) wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<eanuc0561r9l4ca8dpi3sknmnp1jmkuafj@4ax.com>...
:|> >:|> LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> >:|
:|> >:|> >:|
:|> >:|> >:|Dana wrote:
:|> >:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> >:|> <buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|> >:|> >:|> news:jmjtc0l7hfd69kn5raub54525tufbcqufr@4ax.com...
:|> >:|> >:|> > "Mike P" <res1yj7x@verizon.net> wrote:
:|> >:|> >:|> > >:|I believe it was based on a technicality, and nothing else. It's being
:|> >:|> >:|> > >:|refilled as we speak.
:|> >:|> >:|> >
:|> >:|> >:|> > Do you have a site for that?
:|> >:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> >:|> As jailbird prove he knows nothing about the Constitution.
:|> >:|> >:|> Once the USSC hears a case, there is no longer any appeal
:|> >:|> >:|> you can do.
:|> >:|> >:|
:|> >:|> >:|It can be refiled provided the mother or other legal
:|> >:|> >:|guardian with "status" file it de novo.
:|> >:|> >:|
:|> >:|> >:|While I have not seen the judgment, it appears the
:|> >:|> >:|court only decided that Newdow did not have "status" to
:|> >:|> >:|act on behalf of his son, therefore the case is moot.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Three Justices actually ruled on "merit."
:|> >:|> However five justices by-passed that and shot the case down on the
:|> >:|> "technicality of the escape they gave themselves, the standing issue.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> I think it comes out to be close to or an actual draw. I think that were
:|> >:|> one to add up all the judges, who along the way ruled he had standing and
:|> >:|> those who ruled he didn't it comes out to be close to or an actual tie.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> The truth of the matter is, they could have done anything they wanted to do
:|> >:|> with the standing issue. They could have ruled he had standing as easily as
:|> >:|> they ruled he didn't.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> As it was, it served it's purpose, it was an escape clause.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas ruled that "under God" was constitutional
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer ruled basically "no case"
:|> >:|> since Newdow "didn't have standing."
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Thus it could very easily have been a 5-3 ruling in favor of Newdow, had
:|> >:|> they not elected to take the easy way out.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Why do you think it follows that the no standing finding was a way to
:|> >:|avoid a constitutional finding?
:|>
:|> I already explained that.
:|>
:|
:|I don't see the explanation.
:|
:|> >:|If I'd been on the Court, I'd have felt compelled to find no standing
:|> >:|if only to keep other such cases from finding their way to the Court.
:|>
:|> Such cases as what.
:|> Challenging something that is unconstitutional?
:|> Why are you afraid of that.
:|>
:|
:|Why would you look for a hidden meaning? Such cases where an
:|individual did not have proper standing (the reason the case was not
:|considered on the merits).
:|
:|> BTW, the court frequently looks for ways to avoid deciding
:|> constitutionality
:|>
:|
:|They do. They also try to make certain that only cases come to them
:|that have followed proper procedures. One should check for this
:|before deciding that the reason was the issue itself.

Part of this was actually sent in reply to Strickland but hey it works here
too:
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|He doesn't need a law school alma matter. He accurately predicted that
:|Standing would be an issue. He was able to make an accurate prediction
:|without a degree, and the 9th with all of its collective degrees could not
:|make the same prediction, and address it.

One should read something before they make a total ***** of themselves.
Let me enlighten you
DID YOU KNOW:
for example that your so called "being right" isn't such a feather in your
cap after all.
Standing wasn't an issue, standing was a cop put. It had nothing to do with
standing, it had to do with choosing the easy way out.
You don't believe me, maybe you will believe Chief Justice Rehnquist:
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. v. NEWDOW et al.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth
circuit
[June 14, 2004]
Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice O'Connor joins, and with
whom Justice Thomas joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.
The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order
to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from
that ruling. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore:
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. v. NEWDOW et al.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624
Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment.
I join the concurrence of The Chief Justice in full. Like him, I would
follow our policy of deferring to the Federal Courts of Appeals in matters
that involve the interpretation of state law, see Bowen v. Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879 (1988), and thereby conclude that the respondent does have
standing to bring his constitutional claim before a federal court. . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. v. NEWDOW et al.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624
Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment.
Because I agree with The Chief Justice that respondent Newdow has
standing,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let's toss in the following just for good measure:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
� MICHAEL A. NEWDOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
US CONGRESS; No. 00-16423
Argued and Submitted
March 14, 2002�San Francisco, California
Filed June 26, 2002
Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Stephen Reinhardt and
Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Judge Goodwin,
Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Fernandez
9105
SOURCE OF INFORMATION NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS p. 9131
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf
all agreed that Newdow had standing. Even though Judge Fernandez dissented
on one part he joined the others in agreeing Newdow had standing.
**************************************************************
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL A. NEWDOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 00-16423
v. D.C. No.
U.S. CONGRESS; CV 00-00495-
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California
Milton L. Schwartz, Senior Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
March 14, 2002�San Francisco, California
Filed June 26, 2002
Amended February 28, 2003
Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Stephen Reinhardt and
Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Goodwin;
Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Fernandez
ORDER
The opinion filed June 26, 2002, is ordered amended. The
Clerk is instructed to file the amended opinion with Judge
Fernandez�s amended concurrence/dissent. Judge Reinhardt�s
concurrence in the order denying rehearing en banc, along
with Judge O�Scannlain�s and Judge McKeown�s dissent
from that order shall also be filed.
The Clerk is also instructed not to accept for filing any new
petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc in
this case.
With the opinion thus amended, the panel has voted unanimously
to deny the petitions for rehearing.
The full court has been advised of the petitions for rehearing
en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to
rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a
majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor
of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
The petitions for rehearing are DENIED and the petitions
for rehearing en banc are DENIED.
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, concurring in the order:
My views as to the merits of this issue are set forth in the
amended majority opinion authored by Judge Goodwin, and
I adhere to them fully.
O�SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, with whom KLEINFELD,
GOULD, TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit
Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en
banc:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1AC18E7FEB98DB6D88256CDB000AFCF4/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
*********************************************************
All the above judges, while they dissented on the court not giving a full
court hearing they all agreed Newdow had standing.
There was at least one other court decision during this process that ruled
Newdow had standing as well:
12-04-02 Court issues ruling: Plaintiff/Appellant has standing as parent.
posted December 04, 2002 11:31 AM
The Ninth Circuit panel that issued the original
Pledge of Allegiance decision back in June (Judges Alfred Goodwin, Stephen
Reinhardt and Ferdinand Fernandez) ruled today that Dr. Newdow has Article
III standing to contest government action affecting his daughter despite
California state court orders vesting sole custody in the child's mother
and enjoining him from prosecuting the Pledge case on his daughter's
behalf. Today's ruling comes in response to a motion to intervene filed
by the girl's mother and contains some interesting comments on not only
Newdow's standing but also the substantive Establishment Clause issue.
The panel also issued an order denying the U.S.
Senate's motion to intervene.
However, the panel noted that it would treat the
Senate's rehearing petition and supporting memorandum as an amicus brief if
the Senate so desires.
The orders are available for download in PDF here:
Order Denying Sandra Banning's Motion to Intervene
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B07C412D8CA2D8888256C850058E77C/$file/0016423p.pdf?openelement
Order Denying Senate's Motion to Intervene
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EE6DDDB891D2305288256C8500586164/$file/0016423o.pdf?openelement
***************************************************************
So, far more judges and USSC justices said Newdow had standing than
the five justices who elected to opt out of doing their job and pull a Gore
v Bush all over again.
****************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This also can be added:

:|Date: 17 Jun 2004 17:57:40 GMT
:|From: Lord Calvert <forlornh@aol.complicated>
:|Newsgroups: alt.atheism
:|Subject: Re: Supreme Court's 'pro-God' Pledge Ruling
:|
:|> Three justices disagreed with the standing ruling, and went on
:|>to discuss the underlying question, but that doesn't mean the
:|>majority was cowardly. They were just doing their job. If you
:|>disagree with the standing decision, let's hear your analysis.
:|>(And you might want to explain this, while you're at it: "contrary
:|>to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well"
:|
:|The basis of standing in Constitutional matters is specified in the final
:|clause of the 1st Amendment. The State cannot, by law, restrict an individual
:|from seeking redress of grievances from the government. SCOTUS's decision in
:|Newdow not only ignored this constitutional principle, but effectively repealed
:|it. By claiming that Newdow did not have standing they have placed the power of
:|the state in firm control in the decision-making process of who can or cannot
:|stand against the state in a court of law; something which is a fundamental
:|conflict of interest. Obviously it is in the state's best interest to limit who
:|can sue them which was why the limitation on governmental power was
:|specifically placed in the Constitution. The Newdow decision just stripped that
:|governmental limitation away, restricting the rights of individuals and
:|increasing the power of the State to protect itself from the justified legal
:|claims of its own citizens.
:|
:|There were three judges who did agree that Newdow had standing. They were the
:|three judges who ruled on the case in the 9th Circuit, and they unanimously
:|ruled that he did have standing. Even the judge who dissented on the merits of
:|the case conceded that his standing was proper.
:|
:|
:|Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
:|EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use

*******************************************************
.

User: "RTO Trainer"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	18 Jun 2004 02:02:40 PM

wrote in message news:<eqt5d0pf1khgjvokbmfe7t9hs888vhm4gp@4ax.com>...

(RTO Trainer) wrote:

wrote in message news:<pn51d05gtaikosmbh0u0lrbjl9ck0cvn7d@4ax.com>...
:|>

(RTO Trainer) wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|

wrote in message news:<eanuc0561r9l4ca8dpi3sknmnp1jmkuafj@4ax.com>...
:|> >:|> LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> >:|
:|> >:|> >:|
:|> >:|> >:|Dana wrote:
:|> >:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> >:|> <

> wrote in message
:|> >:|> >:|> news:jmjtc0l7hfd69kn5raub54525tufbcqufr@4ax.com...
:|> >:|> >:|> > "Mike P" <res1yj7x@verizon.net> wrote:
:|> >:|> >:|> > >:|I believe it was based on a technicality, and nothing else. It's being
:|> >:|> >:|> > >:|refilled as we speak.
:|> >:|> >:|> >
:|> >:|> >:|> > Do you have a site for that?
:|> >:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> >:|> As jailbird prove he knows nothing about the Constitution.
:|> >:|> >:|> Once the USSC hears a case, there is no longer any appeal
:|> >:|> >:|> you can do.
:|> >:|> >:|
:|> >:|> >:|It can be refiled provided the mother or other legal
:|> >:|> >:|guardian with "status" file it de novo.
:|> >:|> >:|
:|> >:|> >:|While I have not seen the judgment, it appears the
:|> >:|> >:|court only decided that Newdow did not have "status" to
:|> >:|> >:|act on behalf of his son, therefore the case is moot.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Three Justices actually ruled on "merit."
:|> >:|> However five justices by-passed that and shot the case down on the
:|> >:|> "technicality of the escape they gave themselves, the standing issue.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> I think it comes out to be close to or an actual draw. I think that were
:|> >:|> one to add up all the judges, who along the way ruled he had standing and
:|> >:|> those who ruled he didn't it comes out to be close to or an actual tie.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> The truth of the matter is, they could have done anything they wanted to do
:|> >:|> with the standing issue. They could have ruled he had standing as easily as
:|> >:|> they ruled he didn't.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> As it was, it served it's purpose, it was an escape clause.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas ruled that "under God" was constitutional
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer ruled basically "no case"
:|> >:|> since Newdow "didn't have standing."
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Thus it could very easily have been a 5-3 ruling in favor of Newdow, had
:|> >:|> they not elected to take the easy way out.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Why do you think it follows that the no standing finding was a way to
:|> >:|avoid a constitutional finding?
:|>
:|> I already explained that.
:|>
:|
:|I don't see the explanation.
:|
:|> >:|If I'd been on the Court, I'd have felt compelled to find no standing
:|> >:|if only to keep other such cases from finding their way to the Court.
:|>
:|> Such cases as what.
:|> Challenging something that is unconstitutional?
:|> Why are you afraid of that.
:|>
:|
:|Why would you look for a hidden meaning? Such cases where an
:|individual did not have proper standing (the reason the case was not
:|considered on the merits).
:|
:|> BTW, the court frequently looks for ways to avoid deciding
:|> constitutionality
:|>
:|
:|They do. They also try to make certain that only cases come to them
:|that have followed proper procedures. One should check for this
:|before deciding that the reason was the issue itself.

Part of this was actually sent in reply to Strickland but hey it works here
too:

"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

Justices disagreeing with each other is nothing terribly new. What's the point?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	19 Jun 2004 05:01:40 AM

(RTO Trainer) wrote:

:|
:|Justices disagreeing with each other is nothing terribly new. What's the point?

Apparently far too complex for you to understands if that was your lame
reply to all of that information
Have a nice life
.

User: "LeMod Pol"
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	19 Jun 2004 08:26:59 AM

wrote:

bill.white@us.army.mil (RTO Trainer) wrote:

:|
:|Justices disagreeing with each other is nothing terribly new. What's the point?

Apparently far too complex for you to understands if that was your lame
reply to all of that information

What information?? Very little of your prior post was
information:--
^ ^ ^ ^ ^

wrote in message news:<eqt5d0pf1khgjvokbmfe7t9hs888vhm4gp@4ax.com>...

Justices disagreeing with each other is nothing
terribly new. What's the point?

While you quoted 100 lines totally irrelevant to your
pompous rant, White (posting from Afghanistan) simply
asked "What's the point?"
He was right! Both that rant and your followup ad hom
rant were/are pointless.
BTW- Bill White was one of the proponents of
us.talk.constitution, and is nobody's fool.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Flash!! REFERENCE TO DIVINE TO STAY IN PLEDGE	19 Jun 2004 09:57:55 AM

LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote:

:|What information?? Very little of your prior post was
:|information:--

So you say

:|While you quoted 100 lines totally irrelevant to your
:|pompous rant, White (posting from Afghanistan)

Hmmmmmm why was this (posting from Afghanistan) Should I be impressed?
I'm posting from Virginia. Big deal and don't be impressed, I'm not
impressed with Virginia either.

:|simply
:|asked "What's the point?"

The point was the standing ruling was cop out, an escape valve.
The fact is, he did have standing, regardless what the five said.
The original post was a reply to another, and it accomplished that which it
was meant to accomplish
Since your buddy mentioned standing I re-posted it in reply to him as well.
It fit, perhaps not as perfectly as in the first case but fit nicely there
as well
I don't need you or his agreement to make it valid.

:|He was right! Both that rant and your followup ad hom
:|rant were/are pointless.

Much of what I have seen you post fits that as well.
You seem very rude and fast to attack others to lay insults etc.
I usually don't bother reading that which you post.
You don't like what I post, don't read it. I'm not going to lose any sleep
over it
The only reason I replied to this was because it was in direct reply to one
of my replies

:|
:|BTW- Bill White was one of the proponents of
:|us.talk.constitution, and is nobody's fool.

So.
It's a newsgroups I don't get nor would I be interested to subscribe to if
I did.
Nor am I a fool, so what have we accomplished here this day, huh?
Anything?
.