Breaking: Federal Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance "Unconstitutional"!!!

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Breaking: Federal Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance "Unconstitutional"!!! (Page 1 of 4)

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:14:07 AM EDT

Not many details yet...

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484432/posts

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:15:06 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Not many details yet...

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484432/posts

awww......beat me to it

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:17:11 AM EDT

[#2]

Let me guess -- Ninth Circus. These liberal judges are ruining this country.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:17:28 AM EDT

[#3]

On FNC... coming across the wire now

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:17:30 AM EDT

[#4]

This country is dead.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:17:58 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Let me guess -- Ninth Circus. These liberal judges are ruining this country.

Very Good!

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:18:09 AM EDT

[#6]

Everytime a liberal judge does something that is both visible and incredibly stupid, the dems lose another seat in the House.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:18:44 AM EDT

[#7]

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:21:07 AM EDT

[#8]

We're still going to recite the pledge, anyway!

This is actually good news, we're going to win more seats in the 2006 election cycle.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:22:17 AM EDT

[#9]

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:22:51 AM EDT

[#10]

Get a rope.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:23:45 AM EDT

[#11]

CHiP ordered to tackle any students reciting the Pledge!

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:23:58 AM EDT

[#12]

Congress should have fun with this. Pass a law requiring federal judges to open court with the pledge of allegiance each day.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:26:31 AM EDT

[#13]

Duped out by about one minute...

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=389864

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:27:31 AM EDT

[#14]

Anyone suprised?

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:28:23 AM EDT

[#15]

Link

Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
Sep 14 2:20 PM US/Eastern

By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

Shameful

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:30:18 AM EDT

[#16]

BREAKING: Constitution ruled unconstitutional.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:30:56 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Everytime a liberal judge does something that is both visible and incredibly stupid, the dems lose another seat in the House.

"Every time a bell rings, an angel gets it's wings"

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:31:10 AM EDT

[#18]

fucking hippies

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:31:25 AM EDT

[#19]

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:31:44 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Link

Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
Sep 14 2:20 PM US/Eastern

By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

Shameful

Can someone please go and kick this guy's ass? Or at least tell me where he is, so I can fly out there and do it?

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:34:33 AM EDT

[#21]

Yet another stupid hippy, throwing my tax dollars down the fucking toilet

If ya dont wanna say the God part...just dont say it...

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:35:27 AM EDT

[#22]

"We the People" need a way to remove bad Federal Judges...

this shit is just out of control from the idiot judges.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:35:29 AM EDT

[#23]

Guys, it is like a rubber band stretching and stretching.... The more the left pulls, eventually it is either going to snap back or break. Either way the people pulling are going to get hurt.

ETA: This is what has become of the 1960's generation. Anyone who thought back then that they were just kids being crazy kids was fooling themselves.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:35:56 AM EDT

[#24]

I live in Sacramento...

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:36:08 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Yet another stupid hippy, throwing my tax dollars down the fucking toilet

If ya dont wanna say the God part...just dont say it...

You know, that's a good point. No teacher is going to punish a child who remains silent for the "under God" part. There's no sense in ruling the whole damn thing unconstitutional.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:37:25 AM EDT

[#26]

The Dems are showing more and more that they actually hate the America that was founded.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:38:31 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Yet another stupid hippy, throwing my tax dollars down the fucking toilet

If ya dont wanna say the God part...just dont say it...

The problem they want any of us to say the word God either. This is truly the minority ruling the majority.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:41:04 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Yet another stupid hippy, throwing my tax dollars down the fucking toilet

If ya dont wanna say the God part...just dont say it...

You know, that's a good point. No teacher is going to punish a child who remains silent for the "under God" part. There's no sense in ruling the whole damn thing unconstitutional.

I agree with that but it would apply the other way as well. Restore the pledge to its original form and let anyone who wishes to add "under God" or "under Vishnu" or "under Thor's Hammer" or whatever as they please.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:41:26 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

Huh? I thought the US Supreme Court overturned that ruling? Or am I thinking of something else?

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:41:28 AM EDT

[#30]

I propose a national holiday called Kill a Liberal day.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:43:07 AM EDT

[#31]

I thought that the Supreme Court had already addressed this issue.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:47:39 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

Huh? I thought the US Supreme Court overturned that ruling? Or am I thinking of something else? hr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case on March 24, 2004.

Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself from the case after a request by Newdow that cited Scalia's disapproval of the Ninth Circuit decision in a public speech. According to Scalia, many lower courts often misinterpret the Establishment Clause, extending its proscription of religiousness in the public sphere.

Without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the decision of the Ninth Circuit on June 14, 2004. However, the legal reasoning for the decision was not unanimous.

In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, a five-justice majority asserted that Newdow, as a noncustodial parent, had no legal right under California state law to act as his daughter's legal representative, and therefore no standing under the Constitution to bring suit on her behalf in federal court.

In an opinion concurring in the reversal, but pointedly dissenting as to the reasoning, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined in part by two other justices, asserted that Newdow did have standing but that the term "under God" does not endorse or establish religion. Instead, they asserted that the term merely acknowledges the nation's religious heritage, in particular the role of religion for the Founding Fathers. By this reasoning, which does not constitute the precedent of a majority, the recital of the phrase in the Pledge is a secular act rather than an act of indoctrination in religion or expression of religious devotion.

In his opinion concurring in the reversal, Justice Clarence Thomas agrees with the Chief Justice that Newdow had standing, and accepts that legal precedent would dictate the unconstitutionality of the Pledge policy. However, he asserts that such precedent is unjustifiably expansive of the meaning of "coercion" in prohibiting compelling students in a "fair and real sense" by "subtle and indirect public and peer pressure" (from Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)) to be prayerful, rather than only prohibiting actual coercion by force of law and threat of penalty. Further, he argues that the Establishment Clause ought not be considered a right guaranteed to individuals under the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause because he considers it only to prohibit interference by the federal government in religions established by the states.

Quoted:
The Dems are showing more and more that they actually hate the America that was founded.

Also, the U.S. Senate passed a non-binding resolution and a bill reaffirming the presence of under God in the Pledge ( by a near-unanimous vote of 99-0 ), which President George W. Bush signed into law on November 13, 2002.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:47:53 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Yet another stupid hippy, throwing my tax dollars down the fucking toilet

If ya dont wanna say the God part...just dont say it...

The problem they want any of us to say the word God either. This is truly the minority ruling the majority.

Not true at all.

I could care less if you say God or Vishnu or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. It really doesn't bother me that the pledge has God in it.

I just don't agree that "not saying God" is anything you can justify. If its ok for an atheist to say nothing and members of other religions to alter it to fit their beliefs, then it should be ok for a Christian to add the words "under God" if the pledge is restored to its original form.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:49:12 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
I thought that the Supreme Court had already addressed this issue.

no, they ruled that Newdow didn't have an interest in the case. They never ruled on the matter itself.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:49:54 AM EDT

[#35]

Pledge of Allegiance by Red Skelton

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:51:57 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Pledge of Allegiance by Red Skelton

my favorite reading of the pledge, and his last sentence was prophetic

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:54:09 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Guys, it is like a rubber band stretching and stretching.... The more the left pulls, eventually it is either going to snap back or break. Either way the people pulling are going to get hurt.

ETA: This is what has become of the 1960's generation. Anyone who thought back then that they were just kids being crazy kids was fooling themselves.

Don't lump us all in with nutcases like him. You know, many of us served our country so your generalization is BS.

Posted: 9/14/2005 10:57:33 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Everytime a liberal judge does something that is both visible and incredibly stupid, the dems lose another seat in the House.

+1---------They just dont learn do they.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:00:52 AM EDT

[#39]

liberal fucknozzle

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:00:58 AM EDT

[#40]

Ragged Old Flag by Johnny Cash

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:01:15 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Guys, it is like a rubber band stretching and stretching.... The more the left pulls, eventually it is either going to snap back or break. Either way the people pulling are going to get hurt.

ETA: This is what has become of the 1960's generation. Anyone who thought back then that they were just kids being crazy kids was fooling themselves.

Don't lump us all in with nutcases like him. You know, many of us served our country so your generalization is BS.

Nobody refers to the Vietnam war vets, or the hardworking everyday types, as the "60's generation" Most of them are referring to the hippie trash and where they are now.

I may have been born in the mid '70s, but if someone asked me if I was a "child of the seventies" I would have to say, "No". I tend to not lump myself in with the free drugs and sex crowd.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:01:20 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yet another stupid hippy, throwing my tax dollars down the fucking toilet

If ya dont wanna say the God part...just dont say it...

The problem they want any of us to say the word God either. This is truly the minority ruling the majority.

Not true at all.

I could care less if you say God or Vishnu or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. It really doesn't bother me that the pledge has God in it.

I just don't agree that "not saying God" is anything you can justify. If its ok for an atheist to say nothing and members of other religions to alter it to fit their beliefs, then it should be ok for a Christian to add the words "under God" if the pledge is restored to its original form.

I take it you DO care then?

Sorry...but the pedantic grammar Nazi in me just refuses to let that one slip by...

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:01:25 AM EDT

[#43]

"One Nation Under the Flying Spaghetti Monster..."

Eh, the original pledge did have that in there, the SC will find a way to duck this one also.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:12:47 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yet another stupid hippy, throwing my tax dollars down the fucking toilet

If ya dont wanna say the God part...just dont say it...

The problem they want any of us to say the word God either. This is truly the minority ruling the majority.

Not true at all.

I could care less if you say God or Vishnu or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. It really doesn't bother me that the pledge has God in it.

I just don't agree that "not saying God" is anything you can justify. If its ok for an atheist to say nothing and members of other religions to alter it to fit their beliefs, then it should be ok for a Christian to add the words "under God" if the pledge is restored to its original form.

I take it you DO care then?

Sorry...but the pedantic grammar Nazi in me just refuses to let that one slip by...

bah!

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:13:52 AM EDT

[#45]

it bothers me so much that so many rulings and precedent is based on "the spirit of the law" or whatever, when the obvious spirit of the constitution and ammends. is "...leave each other alone."

every law they pass because something bothers somebody usually interferes with about 10X as many people's lives.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:15:38 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
"One Nation Under the Flying Spaghetti Monster..."

Eh, the original pledge did have that in there, the SC will find a way to duck this one also.

??

Are you saying the original pledge had under God in it?

That wasn't added until 1954.

Another fun fact was the the author of the pledge was a socialist

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:16:04 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
"One Nation Under the Flying Spaghetti Monster..."

Eh, the original pledge did have that in there, the SC will find a way to duck this one also.

ummmmm.... I thought it was added in the 50's?

ETA: just did a quick google...

"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.

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:17:12 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

it bothers me so much that so many rulings and precedent is based on "the spirit of the law" or whatever, when the obvious spirit of the constitution and ammends. is "...leave each other alone."

every law they pass because something bothers somebody usually interferes with about 10X as many people's lives.

I agree, they never should have changed the pledge in the first place...

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:24:59 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Everytime a liberal judge does something that is both visible and incredibly stupid, the dems lose another seat in the House.

"Every time a bell rings, ~~an angel gets it's wings~~ another left coast, left wing, whacko-liberal, anti-America, 9th Jerkit court judge sould lose his f*$cking SEAT!"

there... fixed it for ya...

Posted: 9/14/2005 11:26:58 AM EDT

[#50]

One nation above God, and divided we will fall.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Breaking: Federal Judge rules Pledge of Allegiance "Unconstitutional"!!! (Page 1 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us