User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 2:23:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: AP The U. S. Senate has condemned the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling on the Pledge of Allegience by a 99-0 margin. President Bush calls the decision idiotic. Tom Dasshole says it's nuts. Immediately after the ruling over 50 congressman and Senate leaders went to the steps of the capitol and recited the Pledge of Allegiance..YELLING the phrase "One Nation under GOD!" Hahaha... [beer] Even a broken clock is perfectly accurate twice a day. This is a no-brainer for the Sinators & Conmen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 2:32:45 PM EDT
[#2]
[url=http://members.cox.net/indepundit/archive/2002_06_23_archive.html#78237743]What[/url] will the 9th Circuit next declare unconstitutional?
Haha Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 4:21:45 PM EDT
[#3]
A lot of those bastards are voicing opposition to the decision only as a way of keeping people from connecting the liberal infestation of the courts with the democratic stalling of judicial appointments. It's an f'n conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 6:20:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: anip Tom Dasshole says it's nuts. Immediately after the ruling over 50 congressman and Senate leaders went to the steps of the capitol and recited the Pledge of Allegiance..YELLING the phrase "One Nation under GOD!" Talk is cheap and talk from a US Senator is worth exactly doodly-squat. The US Senate can impeach those criminal judges and only the US Senate can impeach those criminal judges. But instead the US Senate protests. This is an intelligence test for the USA. If Senators protesting illegal court rulings is the correct response, then you are too stupid to be a free American. You must turn in your guns, shut up, and learn to be a good slave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 6:23:25 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: A lot of those bastards are voicing opposition to the decision only as a way of keeping people from connecting the liberal infestation of the courts with the democratic stalling of judicial appointments. It's an f'n conspiracy. This is one of your "it's a conspiracy" statements I actually agree with! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 6:34:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Quoted: anip Tom Dasshole says it's nuts. Immediately after the ruling over 50 congressman and Senate leaders went to the steps of the capitol and recited the Pledge of Allegiance..YELLING the phrase "One Nation under GOD!" Talk is cheap and talk from a US Senator is worth exactly doodly-squat. The US Senate can impeach those criminal judges and only the US Senate can impeach those criminal judges. But instead the US Senate protests. This is an intelligence test for the USA. If Senators protesting illegal court rulings is the correct response, then you are too stupid to be a free American. You must turn in your guns, shut up, and learn to be a good slave. Returning a decision that denys Christians the legal ability to browbeat others not of their religion in public is not grounds for impeachment... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 6:36:17 PM EDT
[#7]
By the way Sweep, I thought you said having one multipage thread on this topic was enough, when you locked that other thread?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 6:56:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: By the way Sweep, I thought you said having one multipage thread on this topic was enough, when you locked that other thread? The other thread is about the decision. This thread is about the U.S. Senate responding to that decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 7:01:14 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: By the way Sweep, I thought you said having one multipage thread on this topic was enough, when you locked that other thread? The other thread is about the decision. This thread is about the U.S. Senate responding to that decision. Ok, I guess that will pass muster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 7:03:44 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By the way Sweep, I thought you said having one multipage thread on this topic was enough, when you locked that other thread? The other thread is about the decision. This thread is about the U.S. Senate responding to that decision. Ok, I guess that will pass muster. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 7:31:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: snip Returning a decision that denys Christians the legal ability to browbeat others not of their religion in public is not grounds for impeachment... You just failed the intelligence test. The job of Judges IS NOT TO CHANGE OR MAKE NEW LAW!!!! When they usurp the job of the Legislative, the elected branch, they are breaking the supreme law of the land. They are dangerous criminals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 8:51:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: A lot of those bastards are voicing opposition to the decision only as a way of keeping people from connecting the liberal infestation of the courts with the democratic stalling of judicial appointments. It's an f'n conspiracy. er, huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 9:02:17 PM EDT
[#13]
Thank GOD! The hand basket I was going to be stuffed into for the trip was very uncomfortable and shallow! [rolleyes]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 9:06:28 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: snip Returning a decision that denys Christians the legal ability to browbeat others not of their religion in public is not grounds for impeachment... You just failed the intelligence test. The job of Judges IS NOT TO CHANGE OR MAKE NEW LAW!!!! When they usurp the job of the Legislative, the elected branch, they are breaking the supreme law of the land. They are dangerous criminals. No-no-no... You see it was the [u]SCOTUS[/u] that said that the Constitution gives [u]the courts[/u] the right (and obligation) to overturn laws and even mandate new legislation... and levy TAXES TOO!! So basically the courts determined that the courts get to do all those things... under the Constitution! See how neat and tidy that works out! [:)] No go back to your bread and circuses and leave the job of running the country to the experts. (who do you think you are anyway?!) [>:/] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 9:07:43 PM EDT
[#15]
Edited because anti-gov-tinfoil-man already answered it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 9:08:28 PM EDT
[#16]
The whole point to the contention is...having the tag line of an American patriotic call to allegiance, that references God, is not unconstitutional. Hell, the judge who rendered this decision had to raise his hand and place one on a bible to recite his oath to truth and justice. Weird...
The sooner we weed these "legislators from the bench"...the better. This had nothing to do with the 1st ammendment...nothing. It has everything to do with idealogy. The tolerant become intolerant...amazing. [b][blue]NAKED[/blue][/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 9:10:51 PM EDT
[#17]
It's funny how even commie dip weeds can see who dumb this is,maybe one they will feel that way.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 9:58:11 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: No-no-no... You see it was the [u]SCOTUS[/u] that said that the Constitution gives [u]the courts[/u] the right (and obligation) to overturn laws and even mandate new legislation... and levy TAXES TOO!! So basically the courts determined that the courts get to do all those things... under the Constitution! See how neat and tidy that works out! [:)] Kind of like how the NFA registry isn't really a registration of firearms, just a facilitator for taxation of firearms. No go back to your bread and circuses and leave the job of running the country to the experts. (who do you think you are anyway?!) [>:/] Why, we are the people whom the power of the government is ultimately derived from. How sad it is that so many of us have forgotten that. I have met many democrats, republicans, liberals, constitutionalists, and even greens that hate this government. Yet, they don't understand that ultimately that government derives it's power from them. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 10:09:22 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: snip Returning a decision that denys Christians the legal ability to browbeat others not of their religion in public is not grounds for impeachment... You just failed the intelligence test. The job of Judges IS NOT TO CHANGE OR MAKE NEW LAW!!!! When they usurp the job of the Legislative, the elected branch, they are breaking the supreme law of the land. They are dangerous criminals. Where has any new law been made. They simply struck down one |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 10:11:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip Returning a decision that denys Christians the legal ability to browbeat others not of their religion in public is not grounds for impeachment... You just failed the intelligence test. The job of Judges IS NOT TO CHANGE OR MAKE NEW LAW!!!! When they usurp the job of the Legislative, the elected branch, they are breaking the supreme law of the land. They are dangerous criminals. No-no-no... You see it was the [u]SCOTUS[/u] that said that the Constitution gives [u]the courts[/u] the right (and obligation) to overturn laws and even mandate new legislation... and levy TAXES TOO!! So basically the courts determined that the courts get to do all those things... under the Constitution! See how neat and tidy that works out! [:)] No go back to your bread and circuses and leave the job of running the country to the experts. (who do you think you are anyway?!) [>:/] Sorry but the courts have done none of what you said. Its simply not true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 10:11:18 PM EDT
[#21]
I heard some senators today saying they want a Constitutional Amendment to "correct" the ruling.
IIRC if they actually try to do this, it could result in a constitutional convention being assembled and there is no limitation on it just sticking to the pledge of alliegence issue. Just think of how the republicrats will fix the 2nd Amendment once and for all. They will fix it real good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 10:16:22 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: I heard some senators today saying they want a Constitutional Amendment to "correct" the ruling. IIRC if they actually try to do this, it could result in a constitutional convention being assembled and there is no limitation on it just sticking to the pledge of alliegence issue. Just think of how the republicrats will fix the 2nd Amendment once and for all. They will fix it real good. Bite thy tounge! Never thought of that. Didn't a couple of states just recently withdraw their request for a constitutional convention? I think there were like 36 of the required 38 requesting one, and 2 dropped out now making it 34. I'm sure with some pressure 4 or more could be talked into it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 10:18:37 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: First they ban our guns to render us defenseless and now they ban God. The [b]democrats[/b] are busily imposing their [b]communist[/b] ideals on us. We need to vote these scumbags out. Where have guns been banned? Where has God been banned. Not one church or temple has been shut down by this. And Church schools are still free to use the version of the pledge with "under god" in it. Again what connection does not allowing government run institutions to disseminate religion have to the possession of private property or the right to keep and bear arms? NOTHING. There is no way that this decision can hurt anyone in the free exercise of their religion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 10:35:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Barney Frank, Dianne Feinstein, & Barbara Boxer saying, "..one nation under God..." - they must have run straight home afterwards & washed their mouths out w/ soap.[;D]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 11:26:50 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Barney Frank, Dianne Feinstein, & Barbara Boxer saying, "..one nation under God..." - they must have run straight home afterwards & washed their mouths out w/ soap.[;D] I bet their fingers were crossed. [}:D] Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 11:40:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Where have guns been banned? How can you be so near to California and ask a question like that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 8:53:54 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: You see it was the [u]SCOTUS[/u] that said that the Constitution gives [u]the courts[/u] the right (and obligation) to overturn laws and even mandate new legislation... and levy TAXES TOO!! So basically the courts determined that the courts get to do all those things... under the Constitution! See how neat and tidy that works out! [:)] Sorry but the courts have done none of what you said. Its simply not true. Bzzzzt. WRONG! SCOTUS declares that SCOTUS can [b]overturn Laws [/b]passed by Congress: Marbury v. Madison In 1987, District Judge Russell Clark ordered a [b]tax increase[/b] to "remedy vestiges of segregation" in the Kansas City, Missouri school system. In 1996, District Court Judge Thelton Henderson prohibited the state of California from implementing Prop. 209. By erasing Laws stating "X", the Judge [b]essentially wrote a Law[/b] stating "Not-X". Judicial activism - The Courts become MORE POWERFUL than Legislative branch of Gov't - By the authority granted to them, NOT by the Constitution, but by their OWN DECREE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 9:06:23 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Barney Frank, Dianne Feinstein, & Barbara Boxer saying, "..one nation under God..." - they must have run straight home afterwards & washed their mouths out w/ soap.[;D] You certainly wouldn't want to be standing in lightning strike range during that scharade, just in case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 9:07:36 AM EDT
[#29]
I have to ask a question.. If someone where to just make a pledge and it ends up getting into school and before you know it the whole school system is doing that without any rule,law,legislation establishing it.. Why is it necessary for the Supreme Court to touch it in any case???
If this happened in this manner and someone brought up a complaint to the Courts Would they even be able to touch it??? In other words it seems??? impossible that the court would be able to rule over something they have no jurisdiction over anyways??? Ben |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 9:12:34 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: I have to ask a question.. If someone where to just make a pledge and it ends up getting into school and before you know it the whole school system is doing that without any rule,law,legislation establishing it.. Why is it necessary for the Supreme Court to touch it in any case??? If this happened in this manner and someone brought up a complaint to the Courts Would they even be able to touch it??? In other words it seems??? impossible that the court would be able to rule over something they have no jurisdiction over anyways??? Been there done that. SCOTUS ruled that a VOLUNTARY prayer read aloud by a STUDENT at graduation is the same as the Gov't forcing the "establishment of religion" and is therfore, ipsofacto, henceforth, to-wit and thereby-forevermore UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Go figure! [whacko] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 9:17:17 AM EDT
[#31]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: I have to ask a question.. If someone where to just make a pledge and it ends up getting into school and before you know it the whole school system is doing that without any rule,law,legislation establishing it.. Why is it necessary for the Supreme Court to touch it in any case??? If this happened in this manner and someone brought up a complaint to the Courts Would they even be able to touch it??? In other words it seems??? impossible that the court would be able to rule over something they have no jurisdiction over anyways??? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Been there done that. SCOTUS ruled that a VOLUNTARY prayer read aloud by a STUDENT at graduation is the same as the Gov't forcing the "establishment of religion" and is therfore, ipsofacto, henceforth, to-wit and thereby-forevermore UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Go figure Hell I have no clue where the courts are comming from in a ruling such as that, and I guess I have no clue about the ruling yesterday?? I know that SCOTUS will uphold the 9th circuits decision... But If there is seperation of church and state how could the courts rule on any of that???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 9:20:44 AM EDT
[#32]
Is it because by law youth are required to attend school??? That has to be it...
Does the Courts decision have any bearing on private schools??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 9:27:03 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Is it because by law youth are required to attend school??? That has to be it... That is their "out" but it doesn't hold water. Students are NOT required to attend graduation ceremonies!! Many graduation ceremonies are on Friday nights and that conflicts with the Sabbath of observant Jews. Some kids work that night. Some kids get sick that night. Some kids just don't want to attend - period. Besides, even if they were required to attend, the "right to free speech" of the student giving the speech should trump the "right not to be offended" of the athiests/Buddhists/Muslims/Pagans etc. in the crowd. There is no logic or rationale in the SCOTUS decision. Don't try to make a pig into a pony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 9:38:42 AM EDT
[#34]
As far as a judge imposing a tax to support a school function....I think it is in direct violation of Section 7, clause 1 stating
"Section. 7. Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Are they going to ban the Declaration of Independence from being taught due to GOD being mentioned in the first paragraph? All I can say is based on where the decision was made, it doesn't suprise me one bit. PRKalifornication. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 10:04:55 AM EDT
[#35]
It has taken me some time to get my mind around this.. I am more interested in the happenings on capital hill.... It is interesting what is going on in this nation.... And well I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they mean it.. I say it is a good thing that they are putting themselves under gods divine guidance.. Because Lord knows it is needed.
Ben |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 10:15:40 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Where have guns been banned? Errm, have you heard the phrase pre-ban and post ban? How about the ban on new MGs? Kali, MD, and NJ have essentially banned the AR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 10:25:17 AM EDT
[#37]
FOXNEWS QUOTING BUSH:
"America is a nation ... that values our relationship with the Almighty," Bush said. "We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God." I bet that makes those who believe that peoples rights are bestowed by society are mad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2002 10:34:08 AM EDT
[#38]
It sucks that congress is wasting time with this issue. They should be voting 99-0 to repeal the GCA 1968 or NFA. There are hundreds of laws they could be voting to repeal, and they have to vote on this. A pox on all of them!
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
