Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality

[Fenixgoon]

the whole problem is the court system is now serving every individual's b!tching. we cant please everyone, and if you dont have the balls to say it, then you shouldnt be in a govt position where some punka$$ can come and run the whole govt for you. seriously. the woman who sued mcdonalds for the coffee? call her a dumb b!tch and toss it out. people who get fat off of high fat/cholesterol meals? call them dumb fata$$e$, tell them to get exercise, and toss the case out.
we need to start taking a stand against stupid people trying to ruin america in favor of their own interests.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
just don't say it if you don't want to... you didn't actually expect the supreme court to have the balls enough to challenge something in the constituion, especially about religion did you?

:roll:

That statement is the very essence of ignorance.

why

The Supreme Court has historically tackled the issue of religion time and time again. Grab and Constitutional Law casebook, and thumb through the Freedom of Religion section.

Your statement is patently stupid.

so you're saying that since historically they have, that the current supreme court will follow suit?

 

[ElFenix]

it was reversed. long opinion, starts on lexis page 1 and goes through page 89

2004 U.S. LEXIS 4178 is the cite

 

[MAME]

blah, just redo the case with someone else and see what happens. I don't think it should be written. If someone wants to add it when they speak, go ahead. But I don't want my children to be influenced by something they may not believe in.

 

[thawolfman]

Originally posted by: LemonHead
Who cares! I can't stand how many people get their panties in a wad over a stupid thing like this. It's no big deal! What a waste of taxpayers' money to run this stupid lawsuit through the courts! There are far more important things to tackle than this.

Cheers! :beer:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MAME
blah, just redo the case with someone else and see what happens. I don't think it should be written. If someone wants to add it when they speak, go ahead. But I don't want my children to be influenced by something they may not believe in.

all law is the imposition of one particular set of morality on everyone else.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: MAME
blah, just redo the case with someone else and see what happens. I don't think it should be written. If someone wants to add it when they speak, go ahead. But I don't want my children to be influenced by something they may not believe in.

Are you communist, atheist or both?

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: dc
"Well all you religious nuts can rest easy, your reference to the invisible magic man gets to stay in the pledge."

go trolling in P&N

i agree, you are a troll dc Go away

i don't have anything against religious folks unless they troll like dc And I agree with one of the posts above... its a waste of taxpayers' money... also, what the hell was this dumbass thinking? If you don't have the custody of the child, you have the right to shut the fvck up.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Anyone with Lexis - was it a reversed, or reversed and remanded?

Reversed. It makes sense when you consider the basis, since presumably there is no way for this plaintiff to cure the absence of standing.

There is a lengthy concurrence written with CJ Rehnquist, with O'Connor and Thomas joining, that goes further, arguing that "our national culture allows public recognition of our Nation's religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge: 'From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God.' H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954)." O'Connor and Thomas each wrote their own concurrences as well.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the question may be better resolved through the political branches anyway.

and DA is correct, the court is supposed to always look for an easy way out if they can avoid a constitutional question. unfortunately members of the court often forget this basic tenet whenever it suits their politics.

I am not sure that this is a political question, and I'm not sure how the political process could adequately - or even constitutionally address - this issue. The issue is somewhat related to prayer in schools, since God is involved. You can ban prayer, but you can't mandate it either. As such, I am not sure if there is a way Congress can address it.

 

[ivol07]

Originally posted by: NFS4
If ya got a problem with "Under God," stop using US money

Good point! Big bold letters across the back of all my bills....IN GOD WE TRUST.:thumbsup:

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
just don't say it if you don't want to... you didn't actually expect the supreme court to have the balls enough to challenge something in the constituion, especially about religion did you?

:roll:

That statement is the very essence of ignorance.

why

The Supreme Court has historically tackled the issue of religion time and time again. Grab and Constitutional Law casebook, and thumb through the Freedom of Religion section.

Your statement is patently stupid.

so you're saying that since historically they have, that the current supreme court will follow suit?

Well, sorta. I am just saying that you are wrong. The Supreme Court is not bashful about using its power when need be. Historically they have, and they will continue to do so.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/talking/tpreligion.html

For your edification.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Anyone with Lexis - was it a reversed, or reversed and remanded?

Reversed. It makes sense when you consider the basis, since presumably there is no way for this plaintiff to cure the absence of standing.

There is a lengthy concurrence written with CJ Rehnquist, with O'Connor and Thomas joining, that goes further, arguing that "our national culture allows public recognition of our Nation's religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge: 'From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God.' H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954)." O'Connor and Thomas each wrote their own concurrences as well.

Right

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: MAME
blah, just redo the case with someone else and see what happens. I don't think it should be written. If someone wants to add it when they speak, go ahead. But I don't want my children to be influenced by something they may not believe in.

all law is the imposition of one particular set of morality on everyone else.

yeah, so I don't think they should impose religion on people.

 

[glenn1]

What I don't understand is why it took so long to get tossed.

So much the better to have racked up the highest possible legal bill for the father.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: MAME
blah, just redo the case with someone else and see what happens. I don't think it should be written. If someone wants to add it when they speak, go ahead. But I don't want my children to be influenced by something they may not believe in.

honestly mame, how much do you think the pledge of allegiance affects people when they say the word "god". it doesnt. people repeat it because they're supposed to, it doesnt necessarily reflect any belief that they may hold.

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: MAME
blah, just redo the case with someone else and see what happens. I don't think it should be written. If someone wants to add it when they speak, go ahead. But I don't want my children to be influenced by something they may not believe in.

honestly mame, how much do you think the pledge of allegiance affects people when they say the word "god". it doesnt. people repeat it because they're supposed to, it doesnt necessarily reflect any belief that they may hold.

Well of course it's not going to be much. But why would it be there in the first place? That's all I'm saying.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: MAME
blah, just redo the case with someone else and see what happens. I don't think it should be written. If someone wants to add it when they speak, go ahead. But I don't want my children to be influenced by something they may not believe in.

honestly mame, how much do you think the pledge of allegiance affects people when they say the word "god". it doesnt. people repeat it because they're supposed to, it doesnt necessarily reflect any belief that they may hold.

Well of course it's not going to be much. But why would it be there in the first place? That's all I'm saying.

Read the Federalist Papers.

 

[ROTC1983]

Originally posted by: iloveme2
who cares. it's been under god ever since I can remember. don't really care if it stays like that....... i'm not religious either.

I agree with ya

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: MAME
blah, just redo the case with someone else and see what happens. I don't think it should be written. If someone wants to add it when they speak, go ahead. But I don't want my children to be influenced by something they may not believe in.

honestly mame, how much do you think the pledge of allegiance affects people when they say the word "god". it doesnt. people repeat it because they're supposed to, it doesnt necessarily reflect any belief that they may hold.

Well of course it's not going to be much. But why would it be there in the first place? That's all I'm saying.

Read the Federalist Papers.

Clif notes?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: glenn1

What I don't understand is why it took so long to get tossed.

So much the better to have racked up the highest possible legal bill for the father.

I agree. He is a nutcase.

... and I always support a lawyer's right to bill

 

[Childs]

Does anyone know if the father paid child support or alimony? The courts decision makes me wonder about a fathers rights once he gets divorced. 10 days a month is like spending the weekends with the father which seems like common visitation rights for fathers. If that means you are no longer legally your kids father, then I would not let the mother gain primary custody if I were to get divorced. Prior to this ruling I always felt you cannot seperate a mother from her kids.

In this particular case it seems like the guy used his daughter for his own personal crusade, but I'm more interested in the courts reasoning behind enforcing the technicality.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the question may be better resolved through the political branches anyway.

and DA is correct, the court is supposed to always look for an easy way out if they can avoid a constitutional question. unfortunately members of the court often forget this basic tenet whenever it suits their politics.

I am not sure that this is a political question, and I'm not sure how the political process could adequately - or even constitutionally address - this issue. The issue is somewhat related to prayer in schools, since God is involved. You can ban prayer, but you can't mandate it either. As such, I am not sure if there is a way Congress can address it.

article 5, the only textual method for modifying the constitution.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: NFS4
If ya got a problem with "Under God," stop using US money

How about I keep using money, and bet that it will be the next religious topic challenged.

Who wants to give odds, on how long "In God We Trust" will stay on the US currency? I'm voting to take it off.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: MAME
blah, just redo the case with someone else and see what happens. I don't think it should be written. If someone wants to add it when they speak, go ahead. But I don't want my children to be influenced by something they may not believe in.

honestly mame, how much do you think the pledge of allegiance affects people when they say the word "god". it doesnt. people repeat it because they're supposed to, it doesnt necessarily reflect any belief that they may hold.

Well of course it's not going to be much. But why would it be there in the first place? That's all I'm saying.

Read the Federalist Papers.

Clif notes?

I'm sure you can buy them somewhere. None will be provided here. Read about the foundation of your country. It'll do you good.