9th Circuit Appeals court upholds Pledge ruling

[Alyrium Denryle]

You know what they say about people who will sacrifice freedom for security...(unfortunatly I forget the exact quote)

[Stormbringer]

You know what they say about people who will sacrifice freedom for security...(unfortunatly I forget the exact quote)

"Those that would sacrifice a liberty for secruity deserve neither." is the quote I believe.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You know what they say about people who will sacrifice freedom for security...(unfortunatly I forget the exact quote)

"Those that would sacrifice a liberty for secruity deserve neither." is the quote I believe.

There we go. couldnt remember the exact wording (ironic isnt it )

[RedImperator]

Do you know where those records can be found? I'd be interested in reading them and shoving them in my political science professor's face.

I lied when I said I'd need to wait until I got back to school to look them up. The Library of Congress has ever so helpfully scanned the entire Annals of Congress and posted them online. Our tax dollars at work stomping fundie bitches. The Annals are located here.

This site summarizes what's known of the debate and the amendments that came out of the first session of the 1st Congress. It's a Tripod site, but all its quotes are cited and can be found in the Annals, so anyone who whines, "It's not a university/government/whatever site" can be slapped in the face with a big fat "Appeal to Authority" smackdown.

[Coyote]

Ben Franklin:

"People who will sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security".

And I tend to agree. The problem with the Patriot Act is that it acknowledges the fact that many terrorists-- oh, fuck, let's call a spade a spade-- that Arab Muslim terrorists have taken advantage of America's openness to plan attacks. They move here, live here, act like "westernized" Arabs and then when you least expect it, cut your throat.

We're so terrified of charges of racism that we cannot crack down on Arabs or Muslims, so we make everyone suffer equally. Fuck that! We're becoming a Mullah Regime of Fundie Christians here-- we'll have become that which we are trying to fight.

Monitor the Arabs and Muslims. They're the problem. There, I said it, I'm not PC so off to the camps I go. Bjorn and Consuela and Hiroshi and Sarah are not the problem: Achmed and Hakim are. The sooner we quit pussyfooting and face that fact, the better.

[Durandal]

Do you know where those records can be found? I'd be interested in reading them and shoving them in my political science professor's face.

I lied when I said I'd need to wait until I got back to school to look them up. The Library of Congress has ever so helpfully scanned the entire Annals of Congress and posted them online. Our tax dollars at work stomping fundie bitches. The Annals are located here.

This site summarizes what's known of the debate and the amendments that came out of the first session of the 1st Congress. It's a Tripod site, but all its quotes are cited and can be found in the Annals, so anyone who whines, "It's not a university/government/whatever site" can be slapped in the face with a big fat "Appeal to Authority" smackdown.

This is extremely interesting; thanks a lot for the links. I think this helps establish the spirit behind the establishment clause. It doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion over any others." It prohibits respecting any and all religious establishments altogether, just like we've been saying.

[Knife]

Being neither religeous nor heavily anti-religeous, this is a hard subject. Personally, I wish the assholes in Congress would just strike the phrase from the pledge, on the other side though, it doesn't bother me much to say it.

My problem is the complaintent, Newdow, is using his daughter to further his aggenda when she is not being hurt by the pledge and as I seem to recall, is even a more or less staunch christian. Can this case be struck down because of a faulty foundation or even false claim of "damage" to his daughter?

[RedImperator]

Being neither religeous nor heavily anti-religeous, this is a hard subject. Personally, I wish the assholes in Congress would just strike the phrase from the pledge, on the other side though, it doesn't bother me much to say it.

My problem is the complaintent, Newdow, is using his daughter to further his aggenda when she is not being hurt by the pledge and as I seem to recall, is even a more or less staunch christian. Can this case be struck down because of a faulty foundation or even false claim of "damage" to his daughter?

I suspect the SC may toss the case out precisely for this reason. Newdow badly miscalciulated brining this suit. And God help us if Rhenquist and four of his friends are in an accomidationist mood that day--if that happens, Newdow has fucked all of us good for the next 20 years.

[Stormbringer]

I suspect the SC may toss the case out precisely for this reason. Newdow badly miscalciulated brining this suit. And God help us if Rhenquist and four of his friends are in an accomidationist mood that day--if that happens, Newdow has fucked all of us good for the next 20 years.

That's my big beef with this. It's a shitty case to hang the issue on. I don't doubt that the Supreme Court will simply cut the knees out from under this cases without ruling on the actual pledge issue. Not mention it's a conservative court, they have the perfect dodge on this one.

And so all this, all this controversial crap will be for nothing. A lot of poltical capital has been spent on this thing and it's likely to be for nothing. It's political capital that very well could have been used on other, more worthwhile issues.

When the case is struck down, and in all likelyhood it will be, it'll be a big, useless, set back.

[Durandal]

Being neither religeous nor heavily anti-religeous, this is a hard subject. Personally, I wish the assholes in Congress would just strike the phrase from the pledge, on the other side though, it doesn't bother me much to say it.

My problem is the complaintent, Newdow, is using his daughter to further his aggenda when she is not being hurt by the pledge and as I seem to recall, is even a more or less staunch christian. Can this case be struck down because of a faulty foundation or even false claim of "damage" to his daughter?

He could always go from the stance that the government was doing him harm because they undermined his authority as a parent by endorsing religious beliefs he did not agree with. Of course, that opens up a gigantic mess with his ex-wife claiming that the daughter is Christian and the daughter being stuck in the middle.

At this point, I'd rather the Supremes just dismissed the case on the grounds that Newdow had no legitimate grounds to complain. It seems highly unlikely that they'd rule in his favor if they took the case. The public would be extremely pissed, and you can bet that any judge which votes with Newdow is going to be labeled an un-American, immoral atheist in a heartbeat.

[RedImperator]

The justices historically haven't given a rat's ass what the public thinks about them. Most Americans can't even name all of them, and they're all appoitned to life terms. The real problem is that the court has shown some leanings towards accomidationism in their most recent rulings...O'Connor and Kennedy have been siding with the conservative bloc a lot on establishment clause issues, which is troubling because Rhenquist definitely has accomidationist tendancies (there's no doubt where Scalia and Thomas stand on the issue). That's not to say he's a raving fundie lunatic, but he does take a view of the establishment clause which differs from the general view here. If the case is shot down because Newdow can't prove harm (and I think now there's a real chance that might happen), then no big deal, though no matter how the 9th is overturned, the fundies are going to crow. If the court rules that "under God" is NOT a violation of the establishment clause, though, then depending on how the ruling is written, it could seriously damage the separationist case on all levels. I don't think that means you'll suddenly see the court ruling that teaching Biblical creation in biology class is legal, but you can forget about any legal acknowledgement that the U.S. is a secular nation for decades.

EDIT: Edited for clarity

[Stormbringer]

The justices historically haven't given a rat's ass what the public thinks about them. Most Americans can't even name all of them, and they're all appoitned to life terms.

No, but there are a few things to consider here. They're likely to be going against Bush on a number of issues, including some like the patriot act. Given the already dim view he takes of them they have to be careful.

Bush has got a number of options and might well use them.

Packing the Court - Bush is popular enough and has congressional support enough that he might try this in the second term

Appoint a weak justice - There might be one of two vacancies pretty soon and he could simply appoint puppet justices.

Simply ignore a ruling - simply get Congress to reaffirm the Pledge as it stands. It'd stand till it was challenged again.

[RedImperator]

No, but there are a few things to consider here. They're likely to be going against Bush on a number of issues, including some like the patriot act. Given the already dim view he takes of them they have to be careful.

Which is why they have lifetime appointments. The Framers wanted to make sure the judiciary was free of influence from the other two branches.

Bush has got a number of options and might well use them.

He's got one option, which is to wait until justices start resigning or dying and try to appoint hard line social conservatives who agree with him on the pledge issue. Considering the fight he's having trying to get Miguel Estrada confirmed, good luck with that.

Packing the Court - Bush is popular enough and has congressional support enough that he might try this in the second term

Franklin Roosevelt was arguably the most popular president in history during his first and second terms. The powers he could have gotten from Congress would have made Bush look like a junior alderman from East Asshole, Nebraska. And his court-packing scheme was a dismal flop that sapped much of his political will and wasted a shitload of political capital. Even today, it's synonymous with a president trying to undermine the separation of powers. If the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, his third term would have been a failure. As it was, he spent the entire war in a running battle with Congress over how the war was being conducted. And at any rate, Congress would have to approve this, and this is not an issue in which the Republicans would walk in lockstep with Bush. The Democrats sure as hell didn't with Roosevelt.

Appoint a weak justice - There might be one of two vacancies pretty soon and he could simply appoint puppet justices.

Justices are appointed for life and can only be removed by being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. There's no way to control a justice once he's been confirmed--David Souter is living proof of this. He was appointed by the first Bush administration and turned out to be one of the most liberal justices on the court. It was a tremendous foul-up on the part of the Republicans, but there was nothing they could do. And if a justice is so lily livered that he's going to take marching orders from the White House, the republicans in Congress will never confirm him because they know damn well Republicans aren't going to hold the White House forever.

Simply ignore a ruling - simply get Congress to reaffirm the Pledge as it stands. It'd stand till it was challenged again.

Political suicide. Nobody has outright defied the Supreme Court since Andrew Jackson--not even Nixon, when he was ordered to turn over the Watergate tapes he KNEW would destroy his presidency. It would be seen by everybody, even more than court packing, as an attempt by the president to destroy the checks and balances system, a system both parties see as a check on the other side. I sincerely doubt any Congressional Republicans would go along with it--again, if you set a precedent of defying the Supreme Court, what happens when a Democratic president and Congress get handed a ruling they don't like? A move like that (over an issue this trivial) would wreck Bush's presidency. He'd be hard-pressed to get re-nominated.

[Stormbringer]

Franklin Roosevelt was arguably the most popular president in history during his first and second terms. The powers he could have gotten from Congress would have made Bush look like a junior alderman from East Asshole, Nebraska. And his court-packing scheme was a dismal flop that sapped much of his political will and wasted a shitload of political capital. Even today, it's synonymous with a president trying to undermine the separation of powers. If the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, his third term would have been a failure. As it was, he spent the entire war in a running battle with Congress over how the war was being conducted. And at any rate, Congress would have to approve this, and this is not an issue in which the Republicans would walk in lockstep with Bush. The Democrats sure as hell didn't with Roosevelt.

The situation is a lot different now than it was then. Bush would have nothing to lose and frankly the Republicans, especially these days, have no choice but to follow Bush. And what you're forgetting is that even though FDR's attempt failed he got what he wanted out of the Supreme Court afterwards.

I'm not saying Bush would but he's got the attitude and the sheer cajones that he might try. He's getting his war against Iraq despite the world's opinion being set against it. He might just go the gambit.

Justices are appointed for life and can only be removed by being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. There's no way to control a justice once he's been confirmed--David Souter is living proof of this. He was appointed by the first Bush administration and turned out to be one of the most liberal justices on the court. It was a tremendous foul-up on the part of the Republicans, but there was nothing they could do. And if a justice is so lily livered that he's going to take marching orders from the White House, the republicans in Congress will never confirm him because they know damn well Republicans aren't going to hold the White House forever.

You don't have to find one that's completely lily-livered. Just a facist, fundy that'll go along with the republicans.

Political suicide. Nobody has outright defied the Supreme Court since Andrew Jackson--not even Nixon, when he was ordered to turn over the Watergate tapes he KNEW would destroy his presidency. It would be seen by everybody, even more than court packing, as an attempt by the president to destroy the checks and balances system, a system both parties see as a check on the other side. I sincerely doubt any Congressional Republicans would go along with it--again, if you set a precedent of defying the Supreme Court, what happens when a Democratic president and Congress get handed a ruling they don't like? A move like that (over an issue this trivial) would wreck Bush's presidency. He'd be hard-pressed to get re-nominated.

You do realize that Congress has done just that? Simply rewording a phrase or two and trying to get it by? It's happened a lot. On an issue where the public is behind them, and it is, they might be able to get by on this gambit.

[Kurgan]

That interpretation totally disregards the history and context of the phrase.

If its the law, it can be interpreted, or is this religion?

This same argument comes up with the Second Amendment to the constitution. Gun rights activists argue that the intention was to give people guns so they could protect their homes if the government is unable or unwilling to do so.

Gun control activists say it is outdated because historically in context it was meant to keep up militias (before the state had the resources to build up a strong military) or at least is covered by the national guard, not private gun ownership.

I know the historical context, but its the job of the courts to interpret the law. It can be interpreted in a more tolerant fashion. See, there's the reformers and the revolutionaries. The former want to change the interpretation of the law, the revolutionaries want to change the law itself. I'm not saying one is better, just using this for the sake of argument.

it's very clear "Under God" means the Judeo-Christian God.

If it was started by a Christian advocacy group, you'd assume that was true. But there's nothing in there now saying it is, so it doesn't need to be interpreted that way, unless of course we're going to be dogmatic about it (this is what they really intended). If the law is bad, by all means change it, but if the law is fine and the interpretation is just bad, change that.

My main point was to show the mistakes people were making by claiming that Hindus and Buddhists are not theists. If the phrase is interepreted to mean "if and only if you worship the Judeo-Christian God, which is the only God of this nation" which is one possible interpretation... blahblah blah

The debates on the matter are public record. Everyone from Eisenhower on down meant "under God" to be the Judeo-Christian God, and they freely admitted as much, which frankly puts them one level above the phrase's apologists today, who are cooking up horseshit arguments like, "Well, to an athiest, 'God' could mean the self-determining man".

Notice I never argued for an atheists god being something. In fact, nobody has, that I can see, it was only brought up by others as being a bad argument! I freely admit the phrase does nothing for non-theists. What is being argued is that it excludes everyone but Jews and Christians, and I pointed out why that doesn't have to be the case.

"God" refers to the God of the Old Testament.

What about the God of the new testament? It just says "God" it doesn't say YHWH or Jesus or "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" so why interpret it that way? The thoughts of the Knights of Columbus or some advocacy group aren't in the law (if they are, show us please).

Period. And even if it DIDN'T, the Establishment clause restricts Congress from endorsing religion in any way, shape, or form--the argument that "the 1st Ammendment isn't violated if Congress supports all religions equally" is shot down by records of the debate over the wording the Establishment Clause in the Senate, in which alternate wording that would have allowed precisely that were shot down in favor of the wording actually used.

Not necessarily, and you're going to burn me at the stake for this, but there's a whole barrel of the stuff to sort through. While the Supreme Court now recognizes the rights of blacks, there's been plenty of times when they said "yes, they're property" or "yes, their rights aren't the same as whites." They're not the voice of divine authority, their views can change (hopefully for the better). For the sake of argument. ; )

Any endorsement of religion vs. the establishment of one religion or the prohibitation of the free practice of a religion. Its based on the interpretations...


Again, let me restate, this isn't the constitution we're referring to, its a portion of the pledge of allegiance and the motto on American currency. So, I'd agree with others that its not vitally important like the 1st amendment or anything.

I know, I know.. "why are people defending/attacking it then?" because it matters to THEM. Some people get really mad about flag burning too, or the eating of meat. That doesn't mean we all have to.. but if there's a point to any of this, its that a law that is imposed on everyone affects everyone, so everyone who does care, should do something about it, through the proper channels.

Will the guy attacking this win? Who knows, probably not. If he does, what changes? Not much that I can see honestly. One more feather for non-theists, one more point of rhetoric for anti-atheists, same as before.

[SirNitram]

Jeez, still the 'God could mean anything! REALLY! It doesn't matter what Congressional intent was, it really means anything!' nonsense? Look, it doesn't matter if it does mean any God. Re-read the constitutional part: No respecting religion. No advocating it. No backing it. It does not matter if it was changed to somehow give a nod to all known religions. It would still be unconstitutional.

[Stormbringer]

Jeez, still the 'God could mean anything! REALLY! It doesn't matter what Congressional intent was, it really means anything!' nonsense? Look, it doesn't matter if it does mean any God. Re-read the constitutional part: No respecting religion. No advocating it. No backing it. It does not matter if it was changed to somehow give a nod to all known religions. It would still be unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean that pressure won't keep it in place.

[SirNitram]

Jeez, still the 'God could mean anything! REALLY! It doesn't matter what Congressional intent was, it really means anything!' nonsense? Look, it doesn't matter if it does mean any God. Re-read the constitutional part: No respecting religion. No advocating it. No backing it. It does not matter if it was changed to somehow give a nod to all known religions. It would still be unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean that pressure won't keep it in place.

Of course. People are, ultimately, stupid. I don't think it'll be overturned, I just know from looking at evil things like facts and reality that it should be.

[RedImperator]

The situation is a lot different now than it was then. Bush would have nothing to lose and frankly the Republicans, especially these days, have no choice but to follow Bush. And what you're forgetting is that even though FDR's attempt failed he got what he wanted out of the Supreme Court afterwards.

Yes, the situation is different now. The difference is, Roosevelt was handling a far worse crisis than Bush is, had more popular support, and was trying to pack the court to protect a much more important issue. He failed miserably. And as for "the Republicans have to follow Bush's every order", explain John McCain to me. Or the Republicans who voted against his education proposal, or his steel tarriff, or that hideous bloated monster of a farm bill. The Republicans only control the Senate by one vote. If two Republicans refuse to support Bush (Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, holds the tiebreaking vote), the whole scheme goes down in flames, and never forget that before a Republican is in favor of the President, he's in favor of getting re-elected, and voting to pack the Supreme Court to favor a hard-right conservative agenda is a good way to piss away a political career.

And by the way, the Supreme Court was NOT intimidated by Roosevelt's plan into supporting him. The reason Roosevelt tried to pack the court was because they'd shot down his pet project, the National Industrial Recovery Act. He never got it back. Later, the Court backed him during the war on a number of issues, but they were all directly related to the war (and this was after Roosevelt had been able to make appointments to replaced justices lost to retirement or death). When his successor Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry, they smacked him down hard.

I'm not saying Bush would but he's got the attitude and the sheer cajones that he might try. He's getting his war against Iraq despite the world's opinion being set against it. He might just go the gambit.

Karl Rove is one of the best political operators in the business. His cabinet is full of experienced political veterans. His father was a President of the United States. Do you really think his advisors are going to say, "Sure, George, go right ahead and give the Democrats the entire Federal government in 2004".

You don't have to find one that's completely lily-livered. Just a facist, fundy that'll go along with the republicans.

Who needs to be approved by the Senate, which right now can't get a conservative HISPANIC judge's nomination for a seat on a federal district court onto the floor for a vote.

You do realize that Congress has done just that? Simply rewording a phrase or two and trying to get it by? It's happened a lot. On an issue where the public is behind them, and it is, they might be able to get by on this gambit.

Rewording laws to conform to SC rulings is NOT the same as ACTIVELY DEFYING the Supreme Court of the United States of America! If the court comes right out and says, "It's unconstitutional to have references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance," that's it. Remember the flag burning controversy about 10 years ago? The Court flat out stomped a law that said it was illegal to burn the American flag (9-0, I believe), and left no wiggle room for Congress. That was the end of all attempts to outlaw flag burning on all levels of government with anything less than an amendment to the Constitution. Creationists have been trying for almost 40 years to get around Epperson v. Arkansas, and have been slapped down each time their schemes have been challenged ("intelligent design" is just the latest attempt to do this).

[Stormbringer]

Karl Rove is one of the best political operators in the business. His cabinet is full of experienced political veterans. His father was a President of the United States. Do you really think his advisors are going to say, "Sure, George, go right ahead and give the Democrats the entire Federal government in 2004".

I'll concede that packing the Court would be incredibly dumb and would be a bad move. That doesn't mean they might not try something, especially if they strike down more than just the Pledge. You have to consider other issues on which Bush is incredibly strong, war is THE issue. You've got one facist fundy and several that aren't much better in office. If the Administration position improves they might do something.

This is a long shot possibility and I'll concede that.

Who needs to be approved by the Senate, which right now can't get a conservative HISPANIC judge's nomination for a seat on a federal district court onto the floor for a vote.

Yeah. But they can't hold up a Supreme Court Nomination so easily. This is a sideshow compared to the Supreme Court. And those holding it up in this case know it.

Look at the Ashcroft business, all they had to do was play the obstruction card.

Rewording laws to conform to SC rulings is NOT the same as ACTIVELY DEFYING the Supreme Court of the United States of America! If the court comes right out and says, "It's unconstitutional to have references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance," that's it.

If it's that blunt yes. But I don't think it'd be so clear cut if they strike it down. More than likely there will be wiggle room.

[RedImperator]

If its the law, it can be interpreted, or is this religion?

This same argument comes up with the Second Amendment to the constitution. Gun rights activists argue that the intention was to give people guns so they could protect their homes if the government is unable or unwilling to do so.

Gun control activists say it is outdated because historically in context it was meant to keep up militias (before the state had the resources to build up a strong military) or at least is covered by the national guard, not private gun ownership.

I know the historical context, but its the job of the courts to interpret the law. It can be interpreted in a more tolerant fashion. See, there's the reformers and the revolutionaries. The former want to change the interpretation of the law, the revolutionaries want to change the law itself. I'm not saying one is better, just using this for the sake of argument.

Of course a law can be interpreted, but it's an established legal principle that the intent of a law's writers (the spirit of the law, so to speak), must be taken into account in making that interpretation when the law is vague on any particular point. For example, there was a case several years ago when the Supreme Court threw out an asset-forefiture case because the conviction (of a woman who'd unwittingly bought property with drug money given to her by her boyfriend), while possibly within the letter of the law thanks to vague wording, clearly violated the spirit in which Congress had written it. When a law is unclear, judges do not get to make up their own interpretation on the spot--that's what precedent, case law, and original intent mean. And when they do, their decisons usually get overturned in appeals. In all the Establishment Clause cases, none of the accomidationists are arguing, "Well, the intent of the Framers may have been strict separation, but we think its time for a new interpretation." All the argument has been over whether or not the Framers meant for the clause to be separationist or accomidationist, and in my opinion, the evidence CLEARLY shows that Madison and Congress intended for it to be separationist.

Hell, you made my case for me unwittingly by bringing up the Second Amendment--gun control activists argue that the amendment was intended to preserve state militias, gun rights activists argue it was meant to preserve private ownership of firearms. There IS a contingent on the gun control side arguing that the Framers' intent is obsolete, but that doesn't matter in this case because the social and technological arguments they use (guns are fine for small farmers and frontier woodsmen but not an urbanized population, guns are much more leathal now than they were then) don't apply in this case.

it's very clear "Under God" means the Judeo-Christian God.

If it was started by a Christian advocacy group, you'd assume that was true. But there's nothing in there now saying it is, so it doesn't need to be interpreted that way, unless of course we're going to be dogmatic about it (this is what they really intended). If the law is bad, by all means change it, but if the law is fine and the interpretation is just bad, change that.

Wrong. Conressional intent is taken into account when deciding on the constitutionality of a law. The intent was to promote the Judeo-Christian God--only someone totally ignorant of the debate at the time could possibly argue otherwise. This isn't the Boy Scouts, where you can say, "Well, now 'God' means whatever you want it to mean".

My main point was to show the mistakes people were making by claiming that Hindus and Buddhists are not theists. If the phrase is interepreted to mean "if and only if you worship the Judeo-Christian God, which is the only God of this nation" which is one possible interpretation... blahblah blah

Given the evidence, that's the only possible interpretation. And since it excludes athiests anyway, the point is moot.

Notice I never argued for an atheists god being something. In fact, nobody has, that I can see, it was only brought up by others as being a bad argument! I freely admit the phrase does nothing for non-theists. What is being argued is that it excludes everyone but Jews and Christians, and I pointed out why that doesn't have to be the case.

All these legal and semantic gymnastics are for shit if you can't prove "under God" doesn't exclude athiests.

What about the God of the new testament? It just says "God" it doesn't say YHWH or Jesus or "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" so why interpret it that way? The thoughts of the Knights of Columbus or some advocacy group aren't in the law (if they are, show us please).

The God of the Old Testament IS the God of the New Testament, or did you think I meant to say the phrase excludes Christians in favor of Jews? And the thoughts of the Knights of Columbus and all the other advocacy groups that came on board at the time DO matter if the words and actions of the congressmen, senators, and President who voted for and signed the bill were influenced by them and of the same mind.

Not necessarily, and you're going to burn me at the stake for this, but there's a whole barrel of the stuff to sort through. While the Supreme Court now recognizes the rights of blacks, there's been plenty of times when they said "yes, they're property" or "yes, their rights aren't the same as whites." They're not the voice of divine authority, their views can change (hopefully for the better). For the sake of argument. ; )

Any endorsement of religion vs. the establishment of one religion or the prohibitation of the free practice of a religion. Its based on the interpretations...

Invalid analogy. Blacks ceased to be property when the 13th Amendment was ratified, and they gained equal citizenship with whites with the 14th and 15th Amendments. Brown v. Board of Education threw out Plessy v. Ferguson because Plessy v. Ferguson completely misinterpreted the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment in saying "separate but equal" was Constitutional. The Founders had nothing to do with those cases because they involved amendments added in the 1860s.

The "endorsement vs. establishment" controversy is the heart of "separation or accomidation". As I've already pointed out, I believe the intent of the Framers was very clear on that issue (so does the other side, but of course they have a different view on WHAT that intent was), and the Supreme Court does not have carte blanche to reinterpret the First Amendment however they see fit.

Again, let me restate, this isn't the constitution we're referring to, its a portion of the pledge of allegiance and the motto on American currency. So, I'd agree with others that its not vitally important like the 1st amendment or anything.

It is a First Amendment issue because the question is whether or not the establishment clause prohibits the government from endorsing religion in general, or merely favoring one over another. Frankly, I think the phrase "under God" fails both tests.

I know, I know.. "why are people defending/attacking it then?" because it matters to THEM. Some people get really mad about flag burning too, or the eating of meat. That doesn't mean we all have to.. but if there's a point to any of this, its that a law that is imposed on everyone affects everyone, so everyone who does care, should do something about it, through the proper channels.

It's a ridiculous issue, and my opinion of Newdow sinks every time I think about what a cock up he's started because he had a bee in his bonnet over some stupid horseshit that doesn't harm anybody. All that being said, I think he's right, legally, and it's going to be a flat-out disaster if the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me.

Will the guy attacking this win? Who knows, probably not. If he does, what changes? Not much that I can see honestly. One more feather for non-theists, one more point of rhetoric for anti-atheists, same as before.

If Newdow wins. If the court rules he has a case, but that the phrase doesn't violate the 1st Amendment, the separationists have taken a good, solid ass raping, depending on how the majority opinion is justified.

[Durandal]

That interpretation totally disregards the history and context of the phrase.

If its the law, it can be interpreted, or is this religion?

Yes, it can be interpreted. Based on the founding fathers' quotes and letters and the wording of the clause, respecting religious establishments in any way, shape or form is a big no-no.

<snip irrelevant gun control argument>

I know the historical context, but its the job of the courts to interpret the law. It can be interpreted in a more tolerant fashion. See, there's the reformers and the revolutionaries. The former want to change the interpretation of the law, the revolutionaries want to change the law itself. I'm not saying one is better, just using this for the sake of argument.

Tolerant?? Are you saying that the government is intolerant if it maintains a strict neutrality on the matter of religion?

If it was started by a Christian advocacy group, you'd assume that was true. But there's nothing in there now saying it is, so it doesn't need to be interpreted that way, unless of course we're going to be dogmatic about it (this is what they really intended). If the law is bad, by all means change it, but if the law is fine and the interpretation is just bad, change that.

Explain what else it could possibly refer to, then. Some Buddhists have no deities. Hindus have lots and lots of deities. "God" does not refer to any of these; it refers to the Judeo-Christian god. That much should be obvious to anyone.

My main point was to show the mistakes people were making by claiming that Hindus and Buddhists are not theists. If the phrase is interepreted to mean "if and only if you worship the Judeo-Christian God, which is the only God of this nation" which is one possible interpretation... blahblah blah

Explain what else it could possibly mean then. You cannot infer multiple gods from a singular God, nor can you infer Buddhist philosophies of reincarnation. You can only infer one, supreme being. There are only three religions that fit the bill, and they're Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Notice I never argued for an atheists god being something. In fact, nobody has, that I can see, it was only brought up by others as being a bad argument! I freely admit the phrase does nothing for non-theists. What is being argued is that it excludes everyone but Jews and Christians, and I pointed out why that doesn't have to be the case.

It "doesn't have to be the case" if and only if you twist the beliefs of non-Christians/Jews/Muslims to fit a definition you think they should.

What about the God of the new testament? It just says "God" it doesn't say YHWH or Jesus or "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" so why interpret it that way? The thoughts of the Knights of Columbus or some advocacy group aren't in the law (if they are, show us please).

The god in the Old Testament is the same as the one in the New Testament, allegedly.

Not necessarily, and you're going to burn me at the stake for this, but there's a whole barrel of the stuff to sort through. While the Supreme Court now recognizes the rights of blacks, there's been plenty of times when they said "yes, they're property" or "yes, their rights aren't the same as whites." They're not the voice of divine authority, their views can change (hopefully for the better). For the sake of argument. ; )

You're right; I'm going to burn you at the stake for this because you're completely full of shit. There is absolutely no grounds for infering that the clause meant that you have to respect all religions if you're going to respect one (nevermind that respecting every religion in existence is impossible, anyway). It says you can't respect an establishment of religion. If a law respects one or more establishments of religion, guess what? It still respects an establishment of religion. If the law read, "You can't kill a person," would you infer that it's acceptable to kill 2 or more people?

Any endorsement of religion vs. the establishment of one religion or the prohibitation of the free practice of a religion. Its based on the interpretations...

And the most reasonable interpretation would be that the founding fathers wanted the government to have nothing to do with religion and vice versa, given that Jefferson explicitly stated this in his letters.

[RedImperator]

I'll concede that packing the Court would be incredibly dumb and would be a bad move. That doesn't mean they might not try something, especially if they strike down more than just the Pledge. You have to consider other issues on which Bush is incredibly strong, war is THE issue. You've got one facist fundy and several that aren't much better in office. If the Administration position improves they might do something.

This is a long shot possibility and I'll concede that.

I can't imagine any issue where Bush would try to pack the court. They won't block the war--Bush exceded the War Powers Act requirements by getting a use of force authorization by Congress before launching the war, and the WPA has already been upheld as constitutional by the court. Remember that nobody has tried doing this since Roosevelt, and Roosevelt is just about the only president who could have gotten away with it. There isn't any issue important enough to them, in my opinion, to risk sweeping the Democrats back into power with an insane, undemocratic court-packing scheme that Congress wouldn't approve anyway.

Yeah. But they can't hold up a Supreme Court Nomination so easily. This is a sideshow compared to the Supreme Court. And those holding it up in this case know it.

Look at the Ashcroft business, all they had to do was play the obstruction card.

Oh yeah, this is a sideshow alright. This nomination fight is going to be a sideshow compared to the blowup over whomever Bush nominated for a Supreme Court seat. This is an issue they were talking about during the 2000 election, for Chrissakes. Bush is not going to be able to get some Robert Bork clone onto the Supreme Court (Estrada is nowhere near as conservative as the type of justice you're envisioning, and half the reason they're fighting him so hard is because they think that Bush wants to elevate him to the first vacant SC slot).

Rewording laws to conform to SC rulings is NOT the same as ACTIVELY DEFYING the Supreme Court of the United States of America! If the court comes right out and says, "It's unconstitutional to have references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance," that's it.

If it's that blunt yes. But I don't think it'd be so clear cut if they strike it down. More than likely there will be wiggle room.

Maybe, but I just can't see very much wiggle room to be had on this issue. "One nation, under an unspecified abstract concept that may or may not be a diety"? "One nation, under God, unless you don't believe in Him?" That's the kind of loophole you're going to get, maybe, if they rule in favor of Newdow.

And just for the record, there's nothing wrong with amending laws to make them comply with the Supreme Court. More often than not, the Court strikes down laws based on one or two objectionable parts that are fixed to comply with the ruling while preserving the intent of the original law. Sometimes, that's impossible--the thinly veiled attempt to outlaw Internet pornography in the Communications Decency Act (struck down 9-0), or the attempt to ban flag burning.

EDIT: Fixed a quote tag.
EDIT: AAAAAARGH! Fixed the same stupid quote tag I didn't fix the last time.

[RedImperator]

And the most reasonable interpretation would be that the founding fathers wanted the government to have nothing to do with religion and vice versa, given that Jefferson explicitly stated this in his letters.

Don't forget Madison's contribution. That Tripod site I pointed you towards also has a whole shitload of quotes by him (all cited) supporting the strict separation concept. Jefferson articulated it most eloquently in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and laid a lot of the legal and philosophical groundwork as governor of Virginia, but Madison drafted the Constitution itself and had a lot of imput into the final wording of the First Amendment as a congressman.

(I love Madison. The work he did on the Constitution is good enough to make me forgive him for totally bungling the War of 1812. )

[Durandal]

When was the War Powers Act ruled constitutional? I thought the whole big stink around it was that neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch wanted to challenge it in the Supreme Court for fear that the Court would rule in favor of the other. So, the President always asks Congress' permission for something he's going to do anyway, that way he doesn't act unilaterally and still has political room to wiggle if something goes wrong, and Congress gets appeased by being allowed to give him their permission.