Supreme Court to hear Pledge case

[UltraViolence83]

Now that I think about it, I think that I missunderstood your use of the word "should." You meant that it should be possible to remove it easily, correct? (Where as I first thought that you meant that is should be removed b/c it wasn't old enough.) Unless I'm mistaken, it can be removed easiliy--Congress just needs to pass a law and have the President sign it.

I was just showing that it was changed in the 50's to include "under God" which is what I read on a news article when this whole issue popped up. I think I've read it here, too.

And thanks for that link. Goes to show my reasoning was fine because the words have been changed so much anyway.

I wasn't not referring to anything else being changed because it's not old...No "appeal to tradition" here. Just regarding the Pledge.

[RedImperator]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Could this be used at all? It's Article VI, I believe, and I personally didn't know about it until I read Durandal's site (I think it was his, anyway).

And, even if this can't be used in this case, what about the whole putting your hand on the Bible thing, "So help me God." in oaths, etc...?

Hell, in that case, any member of the military can bring the case up if they refuse to say, "So help me God." in their oath and get into trouble, right?

The religious test clause, unfortunately, isn't violated by adding "so help me God" to oaths. For one, I'm pretty sure it's optional. For another, it's not, strictly speaking, a religious test. A religious test when a state requires public officers in any capacity to be thiests. The classic case is Torasco v. Maryland, where Torasco, an athiest, was denied a position as a notary public because he refused to declare his belief in God, as required at the time by the Maryland state constitution. It got all the way to the Supreme Court where the justices ruled unanimously Maryland's Constitution was in violation of the Federal Constitution. Note that Maryland didn't require that officers of the state be any particular religion, just thiests of some kind, so the case is important for establishing that enforcing a vague, unspecific belief in some sort of diety still constitutes government endorsement of religion.

In saying "so help me God" at the end of an oath, BELIEF in God is not required. It would be a religious test only if you were required to believe in God before you could testify in court, or serve in the military, or whatever.

[CelesKnight]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Could this be used at all? It's Article VI, I believe, and I personally didn't know about it until I read Durandal's site (I think it was his, anyway).

And, even if this can't be used in this case, what about the whole putting your hand on the Bible thing, "So help me God." in oaths, etc...?

Hell, in that case, any member of the military can bring the case up if they refuse to say, "So help me God." in their oath and get into trouble, right?

I think that they're already free to change it. Atheists can say something to the effect of "I so affirm."

[Durandal]

That doesn't change the fact that there is an easy process for removing it, as easy as the process for adding it (which is what UV83 was angry about). If the American people wanted it removed, it would be removed.

Changing topics, I think a more interesting question is if the American people want it there enough to pass an Admendment to keep it there. There may be enough support for something like that. The effect of SCOTUS ruling it unconstitutional could be... interesting. And there is no easy way to undo that.

That link illustrates precisely the massive amount of public stupidity with regards to religion in the government I'm talking about. People think it's okay to promote religion in general but not specific religions, even though there are mountains of legal precedent against this idea. Justice O'Connor, in the Lynch case, stated the following in concurrence with the ruling.

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions . . . . The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accom- panying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

What's curious is that she stated this when voting that a nativity scene on government property wasn't a violation of the establishment clause, even when it clearly runs afoul of her statements.

As for an amendment to the Constitution inserting "under God" into the Pledge permanently, I'd have to think that's unlikely. If the Supremes overturn the 9th Circuit Court, people will cheer, Shrub will yammer about the victory of The Lord Jesus Christ (which endorses no specific religion, by the way, therefore it's okay) over us evil, no-good, pinko-commie, baby-killing, Satanic atheists, and people will forget about it. If the Supremes uphold the 9th Circuit Court's decision, which isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility, then the deal's done. "Under God" is unconstitutional, and the Pledge will be returned to the way it was before that asshole McCarthy got his hands on it, and an amendment will be utterly out of the question.

There's something to be said of the Supremes' ability to unofficially amend the Constitution as well. If they uphold the 9th Circuit Court's decision, they'll have effectively created a constitutional amendment anyway.

At the present, we know that Renquist and Thomas will certainly vote to overturn. Scalia would, but he has (wisely) removed himself. I'd be willing to bet that the liberals on the court would be swayed by Newdow's arguments, that is, of course, if they don't boot him out for failure to demonstrate injury sustained or for the custody of his daughter being in dispute. Personally, if there was a ruling on the actual issue at hand, I'd expect it to either deadlock or vote to uphold. Like I said though, I don't think Newdow will make it that far.

[Wicked Pilot]

I think that they're already free to change it. Atheists can say something to the effect of "I so affirm."

In theory yes you can request to drop that portion. But in reality when a certain field grade officer says in front of your entire squadron that he doesn't believe atheist or agnostics should be officers, and that particular man directly controls your future, well, you learn to keep your mouth shut.

[CelesKnight]

If the Supremes uphold the 9th Circuit Court's decision, which isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility, then the deal's done. "Under God" is unconstitutional, and the Pledge will be returned to the way it was

...for a whole 12 years (as an offical document)....

before that asshole McCarthy got his hands on it, and an amendment will be utterly out of the question.

Are you claiming that people just don't want it, which is possible and perhaps even likely. Or, are you claiming that if SCOTUS rules something unconstitutional, a later constitutional admendment can not be passed to make it constitutional? WTF!? Do you have any cites for that?

[Durandal]

...for a whole 12 years (as an offical document)....

But the precedent remains, and will still be referred to. The ruling doesn't just disappear.

Are you claiming that people just don't want it, which is possible and perhaps even likely. Or, are you claiming that if SCOTUS rules something unconstitutional, a later constitutional admendment can not be passed to make it constitutional? WTF!? Do you have any cites for that?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS can effectively amend the Constitution through its rulings and interpretations of the Constitution. If they rule in Newdow's favor, it will be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to pass an amendment that runs contrary to that ruling.

[CelesKnight]

...for a whole 12 years (as an offical document)....

But the precedent remains, and will still be referred to. The ruling doesn't just disappear.

???

Just to clarify, I was refering to the fact that that Pledge had only been official for a mere 12 years when it was altered to add Under God. What ruling are you refering to? Or were you thinking that I was implying that the SCOTUS's potential future ruling will be undone in 12 more years?

Anyway, I don't really care one way or the other, let's get to the other matter.

Are you claiming that people just don't want it, which is possible and perhaps even likely. Or, are you claiming that if SCOTUS rules something unconstitutional, a later constitutional admendment can not be passed to make it constitutional? WTF!? Do you have any cites for that?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS can effectively amend the Constitution through its rulings and interpretations of the Constitution. If they rule in Newdow's favor, it will be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to pass an amendment that runs contrary to that ruling.

Please clarify. Are you saying an admendment on this issue is unlikely to be passed because people and Congress don't care enough to pass it (or they don't want it passed). If that's the case, then we essentially agree. Any given admendment is very unlikely to pass, particularly one as contraversal as this.


Or, are you saying that passing an admendment is not legally possible do to the courts previous ruling;the admendment would be ineffective because the courts could ignore it or change it. If either is the case, then we have major disagreements. First, the Constitution lays out the requirements for it's admendment, not the courts. And unless you have precident to show otherwise, I don't think that the court's decision would have any effect on the legalities of passing an admendment. For the second part, I suspect that any justice would deny claiming to have the power to amend the Constitution, even in an around about way. Rather, they point out contradictions between statutes and the Constitution, and hence the statues essentially become null and void. If an admendment was passed to offically recongize the current wording of the pledge, (or to allow Congress to make references to God in general), it would be impossible for the courts to declare it or laws based on it unconstitutional.

[RedImperator]

I'm pretty sure he means it's a long shot for a Constitutional amendment to pass, no matter how much noise is being made about it now. I happen to agree with him. No matter how many votes squaking about the Pledge can buy, most senators and congressmen would consider the issue too trivial to fight for in Congress. The first problem is actually getting the amendment on the floor for a vote--Constitutional amendments have to go through committee just like almost every other bill (bar emergency legislation like a declaration of war), where they're easy to quietly kill. I can imagine a proposed amendment getting tabled indefinitely, or perhaps sacrificed in some kind of compromise on another issue (it's a great thing to "reluctantly" give up in a compromise because everyone knows it's trivial but the other side has to pretend it's important anyway--and thus give up something important to them).

[Alyrium Denryle]

Then there is always the little manner of a fillibuster in the senate... you just know that there is at least one man in there with some sense that can keep the entire senate bogged down in a speech about corn dogs....for 36 hours

[Alyrium Denryle]

Edit: Manner to Matter

[Durandal]

Then there is always the little manner of a fillibuster in the senate... you just know that there is at least one man in there with some sense that can keep the entire senate bogged down in a speech about corn dogs....for 36 hours

Fillibusters hold a vote off; they're generally not good to trying to pass a bill.

[Tsyroc]

This cartoon is from October 17th so I am presuming that it was inspired by current events.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Then there is always the little manner of a fillibuster in the senate... you just know that there is at least one man in there with some sense that can keep the entire senate bogged down in a speech about corn dogs....for 36 hours

Fillibusters hold a vote off; they're generally not good to trying to pass a bill.

That is what I ment... If a so called "pledge amendment" were to b put to a vote, the ensuing debate in the senate... There has to be at least someone who can and is willing break Strom Thurmond's filibuster record in the name of the first amendement

[CelesKnight]

Then there is always the little manner of a fillibuster in the senate... you just know that there is at least one man in there with some sense that can keep the entire senate bogged down in a speech about corn dogs....for 36 hours

It takes 41 to filibuster. One to do the yapping, and 40 friends to vote against shutting him up. Given that last year the Senate voted 99-0 in support* of the pledge, I don't see an admendment being killed that way. It is more likely that one will never be introduced at all, that it will altered in a way that would make it unlikely to pass, or that it would pass Congress but never get enough state votes to pass.

*--Or against the 9th's decision or something like that. I forget the exact details.

[Durandal]

This cartoon is from October 17th so I am presuming that it was inspired by current events.

http://members.aol.com/tsyroc/Church.gif

That's slightly inaccurate, since Saddam ruled a secular (albeit brutal) state.

[Durandal]

Then there is always the little manner of a fillibuster in the senate... you just know that there is at least one man in there with some sense that can keep the entire senate bogged down in a speech about corn dogs....for 36 hours

It takes 41 to filibuster. One to do the yapping, and 40 friends to vote against shutting him up. Given that last year the Senate voted 99-0 in support* of the pledge, I don't see an admendment being killed that way. It is more likely that one will never be introduced at all, that it will altered in a way that would make it unlikely to pass, or that it would pass Congress but never get enough state votes to pass.

*--Or against the 9th's decision or something like that. I forget the exact details.

Either that or the abstainer will vote against allowing the bill to be brought to the floor. It only takes one person to derail a bill from the get-go, but that rarely happens.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Hah!
I actualy testified at a Field Grade Court Marshal, and when the prosocutor asked me if I swore "To tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God," and I told them NO!
This stunned the court.
The prosocuter asked me what I meant, and I told the court that "I am an Atheist, do not believe in God, and it would be both immorral and a lie if I swore by something I didn't believe was true and real."
The prosecutor got a pained look on his face, and then asked me if I would affirm that the testimony I was about to give, was the truth, the whole....Blah blah.. under peanalty of perjury.
Yes, in fact there is an alternate phrasing for the oath, and yes, in fact, some have the courage to state this before the court.
I can't possibly be the only person ever to do this, mearly a rare case.


The look on everyone's face in court when I said this was priceless, and I cherish the memory of it to this day, as an example of Grace under pressure, as it was spontanious!

[CelesKnight]

Then there is always the little manner of a fillibuster in the senate... you just know that there is at least one man in there with some sense that can keep the entire senate bogged down in a speech about corn dogs....for 36 hours

It takes 41 to filibuster. One to do the yapping, and 40 friends to vote against shutting him up. Given that last year the Senate voted 99-0 in support* of the pledge, I don't see an admendment being killed that way. It is more likely that one will never be introduced at all, that it will altered in a way that would make it unlikely to pass, or that it would pass Congress but never get enough state votes to pass.

*--Or against the 9th's decision or something like that. I forget the exact details.

Either that or the abstainer will vote against allowing the bill to be brought to the floor. It only takes one person to derail a bill from the get-go, but that rarely happens.

First off, your abstainer isn't going to vote against it. vote cite

The Senate voted 99-0 on Wednesday to condemn the 9th Circuit Court's decision that the Pledge is unconstitutional because it includes the words "under God," just hours after the ruling was made public. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., was in the hospital at the time and unable to vote.

Second, even if there was a senator who wanted to block it, do you have a cite for how a single senator can block a bill? If the senator was on the majority leader, or on the right committe, perhaps it would be possible, but I highly doubt that any given senator can unilaterally block any give bill.

[Durandal]

First off, your abstainer isn't going to vote against it. vote cite

The Senate voted 99-0 on Wednesday to condemn the 9th Circuit Court's decision that the Pledge is unconstitutional because it includes the words "under God," just hours after the ruling was made public. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., was in the hospital at the time and unable to vote.

Well Helms may have had an epiphany in the hospital ...

Second, even if there was a senator who wanted to block it, do you have a cite for how a single senator can block a bill? If the senator was on the majority leader, or on the right committe, perhaps it would be possible, but I highly doubt that any given senator can unilaterally block any give bill.

One senator can block a bill from being brought to the floor; that requires a unanimous vote, if memory serves from my poly sci class last term. This rarely ever happens though, because if Senator A introduces a bill that Senator B blocks, then the next time Senator B wants to introduce a bill, Senator A will block it out of spite.

[Tsyroc]

That's slightly inaccurate, since Saddam ruled a secular (albeit brutal) state.

Actually, I'm thinking that that might be the point of the cartoon. That Saddam was more for the separation of Church & State than the Justice System, although that isn't exactly accurate either.

[Durandal]

That's slightly inaccurate, since Saddam ruled a secular (albeit brutal) state.

Actually, I'm thinking that that might be the point of the cartoon. That Saddam was more for the separation of Church & State than the Justice System, although that isn't exactly accurate either.

I believe the cartoon's point was that people like Osama bin Laden and his Islamic fundamentalist ass-buddies were the ones who wanted church and state to be integrated, while Lady Liberty is slowly being drawn into their ilk of religious oppression.

[Tsyroc]

Hah!
I actualy testified at a Field Grade Court Marshal, and when the prosocutor asked me if I swore "To tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God," and I told them NO!
This stunned the court.
The prosocuter asked me what I meant, and I told the court that "I am an Atheist, do not believe in God, and it would be both immorral and a lie if I swore by something I didn't believe was true and real."
The prosecutor got a pained look on his face, and then asked me if I would affirm that the testimony I was about to give, was the truth, the whole....Blah blah.. under peanalty of perjury.
Yes, in fact there is an alternate phrasing for the oath, and yes, in fact, some have the courage to state this before the court.
I can't possibly be the only person ever to do this, mearly a rare case.

I don't recall which President it was but one of them did use the alternate pharasing.

The look on everyone's face in court when I said this was priceless, and I cherish the memory of it to this day, as an example of Grace under pressure, as it was spontanious!

That would be a pretty good memory.

[Tsyroc]

Actually, I'm thinking that that might be the point of the cartoon. That Saddam was more for the separation of Church & State than the Justice System, although that isn't exactly accurate either.

I believe the cartoon's point was that people like Osama bin Laden and his Islamic fundamentalist ass-buddies were the ones who wanted church and state to be integrated, while Lady Liberty is slowly being drawn into their ilk of religious oppression.[/quote]

That's a pretty good interpretation, although it's Justice that's in the picture and not Liberty. Still a bit confusing.