Changing the nations foundations

[ashibaka]

Not just the church. This has been taught in school in history classes (without the change ever being mentioned) as well.

No wonder most people are upset about Newdow's suit. I could expect ~30% of Americans who really really like the phrase "Under God", but if most people were taught in school that "Under God" was the original wording...

 

[Just An Atheist]

Techbot, I apologize for criticizing you earlier. I assumed you knew the history and still wanted to keep "under God" in the pledge.

Going back to the idea of changing the constitution, there are some groups attempting to get the constitution amended. This amendment is from the religous right to specifically allow God in the pledge and motto.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ok03_lucas/pledgereintroduced.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31368
http://www.nljonline.com/may03/prayer_amend.htm
http://www.praize.com/entertainment/Pages/9980105203252.html

I find it unfortunate that they have to lie to you to garner you support.

 

[crazyfingers]

Defending the Pledge is a pretty sad and counterproductive activity for professed conservatives to engage in. Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s none of the federal govt’s business what any state decides to do in the area of religion. Enjoy your “freedom” people. Vive le Bush and all that clap-trap.

Ever read the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution?

Amendment XIV


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That makes it the Feds business when a state violates the 1st Amendment.

 

[Higgaion]

The 14th Amendment is unconstitutional and was passed illegally. Even if it weren't, the 1st Amendment does not prohibit the various States from establishing a religion if they so choose to. "CONGRESS shall not...."

 

[crazyfingers]

The 14th Amendment is unconstitutional and was passed illegally. Even if it weren't, the 1st Amendment does not prohibit the various States from establishing a religion if they so choose to. "CONGRESS shall not...."

\

Oh, so you are one of them...

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees and it is now a matter of establsihed constritutional fact that states many not establish a religion and that through the 14th Amendment, they are bound to follow the 1st Amendment.

I suppose that you'd argue that states may also violate the freedom of speech and assemply and of the press of it's sitizens? I guess states are also not bound to the 2nd amendment or the 5th amendment..

What a crock..

 

[Higgaion]

One of "them"? I guess you mean a strict constructionist. Allowing the Fed gov't (via the Supreme Crt.) to be the final interpreter of the limitations of its own power is a comical idea and defeats the whole purpose of a written constitution, as Joseph Sobran points out: http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2003/w030918.shtml


Would I argue that state may also violate the freedom of speech and assembly and of the press? Absolutely! Though, I wouldn't recommend it. This creates competition in gov't, which is a good thing for citizens. If one start passing laws that everyone hates, they're going to emigrate to other states that are more to their liking. This gives legislators real incentive to respect people's rights unless their GOAL is to empty their state.


Not a crock at all. Just read the actual words of the 1st amendment instead of the ones that aren't there.

 

[Havoc]

Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair. - George Burns

Why do we pay all those people with degrees and education and experience to interpret constitutional law when people like Higgaion are available for free in every internet chat room?

I'm sorry for the personal jab mate, but really. Every second Tom, Dick, and Harriot thinks they know Constitutional Law better than the experts. What makes you better qualified?

 

[Just An Atheist]

The 14th Amendment is unconstitutional and was passed illegally. Even if it weren't, the 1st Amendment does not prohibit the various States from establishing a religion if they so choose to. "CONGRESS shall not...."

How was it passed illegally? If the amendment got the requisite votes in the house and sentate and was ratified by the required number of states, then it is constitutional.

Once an amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the constitution and is by definition constitutional.

The change to the pledge was made by Congress, so the first amendment is directly applicable.

 

[crazyfingers]

Not a crock at all. Just read the actual words of the 1st amendment instead of the ones that aren't there.

Again, it's established fact that the "establishment clause" and the "free excercise clause" mean separation between church and state.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The 14th Amendment is unconstitutional and was passed illegally.

So was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Want to make a case of it?

Even if it weren't, the 1st Amendment does not prohibit the various States from establishing a religion if they so choose to. "CONGRESS shall not...."

Not so. We all hold dual citizenship: Federal and State. Freedom of (or from) religion is a Federal right granted by the 1st amendment. The 14th amendment cleary states that no state can take away a Federal right without due process.

 

[Higgaion]

I shall put you all in your respective places tomorrow.

 

[armed2010]

I shall put you all in your respective places tomorrow.

ready and waiting

 

[TheBear]

I shall put you all in your respective places tomorrow.

Allow me to jump in here and just say that no one puts anyone in their places in this forum. If anyone has something to say, great. But, know that no one here is the final authority on things discussed here. Your comments and opinions are as equally valid as anyone else's here. We are in discussion, equally seated at the same table. Save the lectern preaching and soap boxing for other websites. That attitude will always be met with resentment and hostility.

 

[Higgaion]

TheBear,

Is there any place for humor or collegial jousting on this forum? Really, some of you people are sooo uptight.

 

[Higgaion]

Why do we pay all those people with degrees and education and experience to interpret constitutional law when people like Higgaion are available for free in every internet chat room?

You’re kidding right? You must be either incredibly naïve to say that or have a raging inferiority complex that you project onto others around you. Try not to do that.

I'm sorry for the personal jab mate, but really. Every second Tom, Dick, and Harriot thinks they know Constitutional Law better than the experts. What makes you better qualified?

Hey, jab away! Your post almost reached the level of funny, but the obnoxious overcame it.

 

[Higgaion]

How was it passed illegally?

Gene Healy- “We return to 1865. As the legally reconstituted Southern states were busy ratifying the anti-slavery Thirteenth Amendment, the Republican-dominated Congress refused to seat Southern representatives and Senators. This allowed the remaining, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Congress to propose the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with Article V's requirement of a 2/3 majority for sending a proposed amendment to the states. Never mind that Congress also clearly violated that Article's provision that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law. To end military rule, the Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. As one Republican described the situation: "the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet."

President Andrew Johnson saw the Reconstruction Act as "absolute despotism," a "bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people." In his veto message, he stated that "such a power ha[d] not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years." Sounding for all the world like Roger Pilon, Johnson asked, "Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this?" and answered, "Certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes."”

Full text here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/healy1.html

If the amendment got the requisite votes in the house and sentate and was ratified by the required number of states, then it is constitutional.

That is true, if it was done proper and legally. However, just because it was passed doesn’t mean it wasn’t inimical to the letter and spirit of the original Constitution or that it shouldn’t be repealed e.g. Prohibition.

Once an amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the constitution and is by definition constitutional.

See above.

The change to the pledge was made by Congress, so the first amendment is directly applicable.

A couple of points. I have no love for the pledge, but to say that adding the two words “under God” violates the establishment clause is, well, goofy. It doesn’t. Second, even if it were, what the States decide to do with it is still none of the Fed’s business and they should be told to go jump.

 

[Higgaion]

Again, it's established fact that the "establishment clause" and the "free excercise clause" mean separation between church and state.

Wrong, that is NOT established fact. It IS a faulty interpretation. Nothing more need be said here.

 

[Larry]

You’re kidding right? You must be either incredibly naïve to say that or have a raging inferiority complex that you project onto others around you. Try not to do that.


Hey, jab away! Your post almost reached the level of funny, but the obnoxious overcame it.

Talk about obnoxious. ..... Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[Higgaion]

So was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Want to make a case of it?

You’re right! As was the entire WoNA. Lincold was a bad, bad man. Ptooey! But that’s another thread.

Not so. We all hold dual citizenship: Federal and State. Freedom of (or from) religion is a Federal right granted by the 1st amendment. The 14th amendment cleary states that no state can take away a Federal right without due process.

Dual citizenship, yes. Freedom of religion, yes, good so far. Oh no, freedom from religion, doh! *buzzer* Darn, now you’ve joined the teeming ranks of the wrong! And I had such high hopes for you.


Thomas Jefferson- "I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercise. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise of religion but also from the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states [or to the people] the powers not delegated to the U.S."


Ilana Mercer- “That was true until the ratification of the 14th Amendment! Prior to that, the federal government had no authority to enforce the Bill of Rights on the states, religious freedoms included. The Bill of Rights, very plainly, did not grant the federal government any powers, but was intended to place limits on the federal government's actions. Ratified illegally after the War Between the States, the 14th Amendment overrode, to all intents and purposes, the doctrine of States' Rights, to which Jefferson looked for the preservation of freedoms.


The particular portion of the miscellany that is the 14th states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The gargantuan grant of power to the federal government is thus sealed: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."


In American federalism, the rights of the individual are secured through the strict limits imposed on the power of the central government by a Bill of Rights and the division of authority between autonomous states and a federal government. As Frank Chodorov wrote, States' Rights are "an essential Americanism. The Founding Fathers and the opponents of the Constitution agreed on the principle of divided authority as a safeguard to the rights of the individual."


If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect the individual from government, the 14th, in effect, defeated that purpose. What it did was to put the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be.


Full text here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34290


Cheerio

 

[Higgaion]

Talk about obnoxious. ..... Pot, meet Kettle.