America Declared Unconstitutional

CNN has a headline saying that a Federal judge in San Francisco has declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
A$$hat.
Update: Here.

26 Responses to “America Declared Unconstitutional”

1. Ken Summers says:

   September 14, 2005 at 2:21 pm

   Again? I thought we cleared this crap up more than a year ago.

2. Cullen says:

   September 14, 2005 at 2:31 pm

   No. This time the entire pledge is unconstitutional. Last time it was just the “under God” part.

3. tree hugging sister says:

   September 14, 2005 at 3:10 pm

   No, it’s the same song, different singer. The judge says he was bound to uphold the previous circuit appeals decision, right?

4. Cullen says:

   September 14, 2005 at 3:44 pm

   Not the way I heard it. Doesn’t mean I’m not wrong. I mean, I am a man.

5. Crusader says:

   September 14, 2005 at 3:47 pm

   More freakshow.

6. tree hugging sister says:

   September 14, 2005 at 3:50 pm

   And for the record, I vote they say it the way the good Baptist minister wrote it and quit pissing and moaning about later additions.

   I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
   and (to*) the Republic for which it stands:
   one Nation indivisible,
   With Liberty and Justice for all.
   Thus it was that on Columbus Day in October 1892, the Pledge of Allegiance was repeated by more than 12 million public school children in every state in the union.

   If it wasn’t for the Communist frenzy of the 1950’s, we wouldn’t be having this perpetual drama.

7. tree hugging sister says:

   September 14, 2005 at 3:56 pm

   (What are you, Cullen? Clairvoyant? Reading my emails? I just HAD this conversation with my girlfriend about how to safely get her twins from here to Vegas. Major Dad emailed “Without looking at a map either go up to 40 or 70 and shoot straight across.” To which she replied “They always just know…..lol…..”)

8. Crusader says:

   September 14, 2005 at 4:22 pm

   I just wait for the day that the Constitution is found unconstitutional.

9. Mr. Bingley says:

   September 14, 2005 at 4:26 pm

   *The totally justified commie frenzy, let’s be clear.

10. tree hugging sister says:

    September 14, 2005 at 4:33 pm

    Well, it WON’T, because no one in the ’50s got around to tacking ‘God’ to, on or in it.
    Thank God.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    What could be more beautiful than that?

11. Crusader says:

    September 14, 2005 at 4:44 pm

    The Declaration of Independence mentions the Big Guy, tho.
    Just stirrin the pot…….

12. Crusader says:

    September 14, 2005 at 4:52 pm

    What could be more beautiful than that?

    Sad what the promote the general Welfare bit has come to be read by pwople as, tho.

13. Nightfly says:

    September 14, 2005 at 5:06 pm

    Looking at the pledge, I don’t see the problem with or without the phrase. It’s simply a pledge to the flag and the Republic for which it stands; that said Republic is “under God” is beside the point. This is not the same thing even as being subjected to moments of silence or forced to squirm through the Our Father.
    Newdow may be legally accurate, but he’s still behaving like a horse’s patoot.

14. tree hugging sister says:

    September 14, 2005 at 5:22 pm

    “under God” is beside the point
    And I think the phrase makes a different point, one that, if the big guys had meant the Republic to be “under God”, they would have framed all our documents to reflect. But they didn’t.

15. tree hugging sister says:

    September 14, 2005 at 5:39 pm

    Beg to differ. It says “their Creator”, not “by GOD” ~ big difference. And that way leaves it open to everyone’s interpretation of who and what (or not, for that matter) a Creator is. And they were in the middle of a justification for a pretty radical act. That is also the only referance in the rest of the declaration. Wouldn’t you think, if they’d meant a fledgling country to be “under God” they would have signed off a little differently?

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    No “so help us, God” after that, right? Although I’m sure, in the majority of their heart of hearts, they were praying “So! Help us, God?”
    You will notice NONE of the governing documents (The Constitution and Bill of Rights)thereafter written have us answerable to any power other than right and reason.

    secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…

    Not the blessings of “the Lord”. The “Blessings of Liberty“.

16. Ken Summers says:

    September 14, 2005 at 6:06 pm

    You realize, of course, that the “good Baptist minister” was also a socialist who intended the pledge to help citizens become subservient to the (intended) Socialist state. The Pledge was co-opted by capitalists, much as they did with Woody Guthrie’s little communist anthem “This Land is Your Land”.
    Co-opting is sometimes more effective than military action.

17. Mr. Bingley says:

    September 14, 2005 at 6:16 pm

    The Declaration is not a legal document; it has no standing in the US, obviously.

18. tree hugging sister says:

    September 14, 2005 at 6:20 pm

    Oh yeah, says so in his biography. (So why would anyone have a problem if we got rid of it all together?) Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.
    The difference with the Pledge and the catchy little tune is that no one is has to sing it at school first thing in the morning.

19. Ken Summers says:

    September 14, 2005 at 6:33 pm

    No one has to say the pledge either. At worst, they just have to remain quiet while others do (which is why the entire idea that anyone is being oppressed is ludicrous).

20. tree hugging sister says:

    September 14, 2005 at 6:49 pm

    I always thought having to swear fealty to the state distinctly un-American, anyway. Are they oppressed or offended?

21. Crusader says:

    September 14, 2005 at 7:56 pm

    …assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…

    Mentioned more than once, sis.
    Only ’cause I love to annoy the beejeebers out of you….no other reason needed.

22. tree hugging sister says:

    September 14, 2005 at 8:25 pm

    ARGH!! Busted. Fair and square. And I won’t quibble semantics, although I’m pretty sure there’s a good argument there, too.{8^P

23. Dave J says:

    September 15, 2005 at 12:53 am

    “You will notice NONE of the governing documents (The Constitution and Bill of Rights)thereafter written have us answerable to any power other than right and reason.”
    Yes, that’s correct, though I would have cited the same passage from the Declaration as Crusader did. Instead I’ll nitpick that “the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights” is redundant, since the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, as all amendments are.
    It’s not clear to me from the linked article that the entire pledge was ruled unconstitutional, even if that’s what the headline says. This just appears to be a decision on the merits that was put off the last time around because due to a custody question, Newdow was found not to have standing to sue on behalf of his daughter. And it would seem to me that this in fact the correct result at this stage, since the trial judge is bound to apply the Ninth Circuit’s previous holding–if, in fact, the decision was only re: “under God” and not striking the whole Pledge down.

24. Nightfly says:

    September 15, 2005 at 11:18 am

    Naturally the Framers didn’t put America under God in its founding documents – they all remembered Henry VIII, the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Inquisition, and various witch trials. As Franklin said, it doesn’t mean that we still don’t need the Big Man’s help.
    It’s not like I want to assign three seats in every Cabinet to the various clergy of the Christian denominations. If they dropped the phrase tomorrow it just wouldn’t make no never mind to me; I think there are bigger fish to fry, is all.
    That’s the sum of my objection to the suit – it seems hopelessly picky. The words have been there since Eisenhower, and we’ve somehow scraped by without the mitred cowl of theocracy dropping over our eyes. If hard cases make bad law, then why should Mr. Newdow’s extraordinarily-tender sensibilities be the determination for 300 million people? Let him soothe his irritation with a chorus of “Imagine” and leave us alone.

25. tree hugging sister says:

    September 15, 2005 at 12:42 pm

    Ooooh, Diptera! En fuego!

26. Mr. Bingley says:

    September 16, 2005 at 1:47 pm

    hehehe, nicely put, ‘Fly