How the pledge differs from those items you listed ISN'T relevant. We're not exploring the establishment clause in all its applications: we're exploring the legality of the pledge's current state. And can I ask what you mean by "tacitly dismissed"?

"I would argue that no clear line can be drawn and thus all should be considered unconstitutional."

Try applying that philosophy to all laws. Pretty soon, everything is illegal.

"So far you have given absolutely no evidence or reasoning. . . ."

If you don't see the obvious pick-and-choose, word-twisting games that have to be played to argue that the pledge is unconstitutional, or if you don't see that the supreme court is overstepping its authority, then I really don't know what else I can say that you would find rational.

"If you (or any one else) wants to continue saying 'one nation under god', it is your right to do so."

If you want to leave out "under God," it is your right to do so. If you don't even want to say the pledge, it is your right to do so.

"What the supreme court declared unconstitutional was the official use of the pledge containing those words at government sponsored activities (such as in schools)."

If the pledge is unconstitutional, then so is the motto "In God we trust;" the practice of saying, "so help you God," when swearing people in; and any other mention of God or religion in any government-sponsored activity. Can you really justify and support such an anti-religious witch hunt? Even Tom said we don't need to go that far.

As for why I used that example, it's because I though it was a very obvious example of a president saying something that wasn't factual. This has nothing to do with Clinton's morals, nor was I trying to bring in his moral defects. I was illustrating a point.

While I agree we don't need to act to remove all references to God or higher power from government, I do want to point out that I think swearing "so help you God" is pretty unconstitutional, too.

"As for why I used that example, it's because I though it was a very obvious example of a president saying something that wasn't factual."

I'd argue that the distinction here is that Clinton, lying about his relationship with Ms. Lewinski, was being inaccurate about his personal life; Bush, by arguing that atheists shouldn't be permitted to vote, was making a political statement. And I'm much more comfortable with PERSONAL inaccuracies and lies than inaccuracies about POLICY -- especially when it's coming from a would-be president.

quote:

---

ClaudiaTherese: Please refer to the end of my last post. My views are not on trial.

---

No, but they are critiquable. Any personal opinion expressed on a public forum seems to be open to critique by definition, since there's no other reason for posting it (unless you intend merely to inform the unenlightened masses, and neither of us are egotistical enough for that *grin).

I was just wondering what that meant to you, since by citing that claim in support of your argument, you seemed to be claiming it was an important point.

quote:

---

Even if the intent of the founding fathers was as you said, the letter of the law still trumps it. We must follow the supreme laws of the land, not documents expressing the opinions of the people involved in putting together those laws.

---

So ... I'm still confused. Are you arguing that the "supreme laws of the land" represent an infallible and unchanging set of rules which are not subject to interpretation? Or if they are 1) fallible and/or 2) subject to change and/or 3) subject to interpretation, then isn't that up for debate?

I feel a little dumb: what exactly is the claim I cited that you're referring to?

No, the Constitution isn't infallible and it is somewhat subject to interpretation. However, the only legal way to change it is through amendment, not through supreme court rulings. Changing the amendment is a power that was given to the people and Congress.

I have read your posts, and they have no merit. What you need to do is read some SCOTUS rulings on the 1st amendment, not argue with me.

You are right that "unquestionably" was the wrong word, but only because many people are not well educated enough to understand the law.

Every columnist educated in law that I've read on the PoA case admits that if "under god" is religious in nature, that it violates the 1st. Their reason for arguing that it be overturned is that it simply isn't illegal "enough" to justify eliminating what they consider to be an important phrase. This is the meaning of "de minimus," which was the reason given by the one dissenting judge.

With regard to G. Bush Sr.'s comment, I was not suggesting that he was lying, nor was I suggesting that his word was law, only that the inclusion of "under God" has been interpreted by people who should know better, as justification for stripping atheists of their citizenship. That is clearly harmful. Look at Mcarthy era damage. (which is really what we're discussing here)

Tom, just as a note: The addition of "so help me God" in reciting the Oath (or affirmation) of office is not by any means unconstitutional. The constitution specifically refers to it as an "Oath or affirmation" each and every time it is written. An Oath is a religious promise, while an affirmation is a secular one.

This is reinforced by the 1st amend: "congres shall make no law... prohibiting the free excercise (of religion)" The president is allowed to make a religious statement. He is not, however, allowed to impose his religion on the rest of us.

One thing that really has me upset is Dubya's promise not to put anyone on the supreme court that will not uphold "under God." This constitutes a "religious test" for judicial appointments, and is a direct violation of the president's Oath of office, where Bush swore to uphold the constitution. I used Oath in this case, because rather than giving the affirmation, Bush *swore* "so help me God"

It's good to finally have someone here who can impartially tell everyone what is right and wrong. Apparently, you're the only one around here who's educated enough.

"I have read your posts, and they have no merit. What you need to do is read some SCOTUS rulings on the 1st amendment, not argue with me."

Funny. I've read your posts, but I don't see any merit in yours. I can honestly say I don't care too much what the Supreme Court's opinion on the matter is. The Supreme Court's power to reinterpret the Constitution is, ironically enough, unconstitutional. Maybe they should make a ruling about the legality of judicial review itself.

Should I even ask why the opinion of columnists matters?

The Supreme Court's JOB is to interpret the constitution. That is, in the absence of the original authors, the supreme court *judges* what the language of the constitution means.

The act of amending the constitution is the act of changing it. This is beyond the SCOTUS's control. It is reasonable to argue, for example, that the various SCOTUS rulings on prayer in school are invalid, because they overreached the extent of interpretation, and in effect, wrote new law. In fact, I think that those rulings were a stretch, since the constitution does not define teachers or school districts as "congress." But the ability of the SCOTUS to interpret beyond the specific wording of the constitution is well recognized by history, and accepted by government. I'm not arguing that point.

But with respect to acts of congress, the wording of the 1st is very clear. "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." When congress makes a written law adding the words "under god" (to anything) it is a violation, unless the words (somehow) are not religious in nature. You keep arguing that the PoA is not a law. Neither is a religion. But the PoA was established by law. And that's not in question. Congress can no more establish a pledge which respects the establishment of religion than it can establish a religion itself.

As far as my reference to "dubya," there is obvious confusion with respect to George H. W. Bush vs. George W. Bush. I had previously made reference to the father, who has no such nickname, but due to the nickname, "dubya" is easily identified.

Why should you care about columnists? Notice I said "every columnist educated in Law." Greta Van Susternen (sp) George Will, Thomas Sowell. etc. Many of these are conservatives, who would love to simply argue that the case is "ridiculous" but who have enough legal background to know that the case is valid. It would undermine their authority as legal columnists if they didn't refer to the law to make their arguments.

The Supreme Court ASSUMED it was their job to interpret the Constitution. The fact that it's recognized and accepted doesn't make it legal. The pledge is recognized and accepted, but you claim it's illegal. Since acceptability and recognition cannot be used to construct a logical argument, we must rely on what the Constitution itself says.

"You keep arguing that the PoA is not a law."

The problem is that there are multiple definitions of what a law is, and they don't all agree with each other. One definition is that it is a body of rules binding on its members. This would exclude the pledge. Another definition is that a law is simply a piece of enacted legislation, which would include the resolution that created the pledge. However, even with that definition, your case for saying that the pledge establishes religion is still very weak, since it relies entirely on subjective definitions and not on logic.

The funny thing about my joke about your reference to "dubya": I said I didn't think anyone would get it, and it seems my prediction was right.

"It would undermine their authority as legal columnists. . . ."

What authority? The authority to express their opinion? I'm not questioning that.

That phrase has been interpret since the writing of the constitution to mean that the Supreme court has the responsibility of interpreting the constitution. In fact I have read critiques of the constitution written during the constitutional convention and the period during which the original states debated its ratification with discuss this point specifically. Your arguement that it is unconstitutional for Supreme Court to interpret the constitution is without merit and in fact directly contradicts what is written in the constitution.

Your said:

quote:

---

Try applying that philosophy to all laws. Pretty soon, everything is illegal.

---

"That phrase has been interpret since the writing of the constitution to mean that the Supreme court has the responsibility of interpreting the constitution."

This is circular reasoning. The supreme court interpreted it to mean that they had the power to interpret it. It's completely without logical or legal foundation. I'd also like to point out that the court started by merely assuming they could judge the constitutionality of laws, not alter the meaning of the Constitution itself. Read Orson Scott Card's recent essay "The Rule of Law" on www.ornery.org. Also read this: http://www.constitutioncenter.org/sections/basics/basic_1d.asp. Notice how the court simply assumed they had the power, rather than deriving it from legal means.

I actually don't have much of a problem with the court deciding if laws are constitutional. It prevents the abuse of power in case Congress and the President ever decide to try to pass unconstitutional laws. What I do have a problem with is the power to change the meaning of the Constitution through court rulings. That simply bypasses the amendment process and takes power from the real lawmakers. This is a representative democracy, not an oligarchy. Only the people and their representatives can make the law.

"In fact I have read critiques of the constitution written during the constitutional convention. . . ."

Irrelevant. What does someone's opinion of the law have to do with the law itself?

And I don't even get what you're saying in your last paragraph. How does that relate to my quote? If you're saying that since there is no clear line, everything's illegal, then you're saying that everything is illegal. This is obviously false.

Wetchik: The supreme court IS trying to change the first amendment by changing its meaning. If they say it means something else, then they have made a de facto change.

I said that the framers of the constitution and critics of the constitution interpeted that phrase to mean that the Supreme Court had the power to interpret the constitution during the debates surrounding the writing and ratification of the constitution.

If you look in the Websters dictionary and the OED both offer seven definitions for establish. Which of these definitions is the correct one? The first among those given in the OED reads:

quote:

---

1. To render stable or firm. [{dag}] a. To strengthen by material support (obs.). [{dag}] b. To ratify, confirm, validate (obs.). c. To confirm, settle (what is weak or wavering); to restore (health) permanently; to give calmness or steadiness to (the mind). [{dag}] d. catachr. To calm (anger), to settle (doubts).

---

Certainly this definition would support a much stronger wall of separation between church and state than websters definition number 6.

quote:

---

: to make (a church) a national or state institution

---

Which definition should we use? Well the founding fathers knew that disputes over the meaning of the constitution would arise and they made provisions for what to do in these cases. They made it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to decide. Even during the life times of the founding fathers, they were not looked to as the final word in interpreting the constitution, that duty was left to the courts.

Your statement that the Supreme Court has no right or responsibility to interpret the laws is contradicted by the actual wording of the constitution, the debates surrounding the writing of the constitution and over 2 centuries of historic precidence.

Two questions.

If it is not the supreme court's job to interpret the constitution, just what is the purpose of the supreme court?

When it comes to definitions, the most specific one is the best. It doesn't make sense to stretch it as far as possible, because that would lead to abuse.

"They made it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to decide."

Did you even follow that link I provided? This argument is becoming ridiculous. History makes it clear that this power was not originally given to the Supreme Court.

Wetchik: It's not the Supreme Court's place to change the meaning of the Constitution. They are making amendments in fact if not in name. This is an abuse of power.

It looks like you added a bit to your second-to-the-last post, so I'll respond to that too. It sounds like you're basically arguing for the same thing as me, but in a different way. I believe "under God" is not a violation of the first amendment. However, if the Supreme Court expands the meaning of the first amendment so that "under God" becomes unconstitutional, then that is an abuse of power by the court. Since we can't really decide what interpretation is correct, we need to stick with the most literal meaning. This means that the pledge is perfectly legal.

Glenn: This is the Supreme Court's job: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html. I don't see anything about interpreting the Constitution in there.

As for your definition of law, I already admitted that there are multiple definitions of "law." If a piece of legislation is enforced, that's a law in the stricter sense. However, forcing anyone to say the pledge clearly is unconstitutional. That doesn't mean that the pledge is unconstitutional, only the requirement to say it.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 19, 2002).]

Your arguments and those provided by your link are completely contraditor to the facts as I know them. If the constitution does not give the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the constitution -- to whom does it give this authority.

Clearly history has shown that some one must have this authority because we do not agree on what the words written in the constitution mean.

And finally, I have never said that the Supreme Court had the authority to alter the meaning of the constitution. What they have is the authority to decide what the words written in the constitution mean. There is a difference and as I pointed out previously one word like "establishment" can have a multitude of meanings. You do not have the right to decide which meaning should be applied to its use in the constitution -- the Supreme Court does.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state ;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

(I've left in in its entirety in case there's a context issue)

The SCOTUS has the power to judge cases and controversies that arise under the constitution. Specifically granted under the constitution. If you don't like the word "interpreted" because the authors didn't use that word, then we can simply go to the original language.

Do you agree that the SCOTUS has the right to judge whether the constitution allows congress to pass a law establishing the words "under God" as part of the Pledge?

And to avoid another post, what should their decision be? And what impact should it have?

In 1950 the Pledge of Allegiance was a statement of patriotism that could be said by every single American with pride, without modification or omission.

By 1956, after some hysterical mob justice, this was no longer true.

While I agree with your basic statement, the Jehova's Witnesses had already successfully sued the U.S. Government over the Pledge, arguing that their religious beliefs were undermined by having to recite a pledge (in their minds) to a "graven image." This ws prior to 1950.

While the original statement "one nation indivisible" was no doubt intended to be inclusive of everybody, not everybody agrees that a pledge should be recited at all.

The ruling on the case was that students could not be forced to recite the pledge, and could leave the room if they desired.

More recent rulings, especially regarding teacher led prayer, have found that even if a teacher does not require a student to join in (a prayer in this case) the student will surely feel coerced to join in, and therefore teachers should not be allowed to conduct ceremonial prayer in school.

Before anyone jumps on me with the "prayer should not have been banned in school" argument, the supreme court has consistently pointed out that anyone can pray in school. To prevent them from doing so would be in violation of the freedom of religion clause of the 1st amend. (and a couple others, too) What has been restricted is the ability of school officials to conduct prayers that students may feel coerced to participate in.

I agree that someone should be in charge of seeing if Congress is living up to that responsibility. Let me clarify, because I don't think I've been completely clear. I don't see any harm in the Supreme Court saying, "This law violates the Constitution." What I have a problem with is when the Supreme Court stretches the meaning and then says, "This law is unconstitutional." I think that when they say the pledge is unconstitutional, they're broadening the definition of "establishment" past its logical meaning. I'm not saying that I have the right to decide what "establishment" means; I'm saying that it's illogical to use any definition other than the one that fits the best.

Glenn: The Supreme Court was given power to judge laws under the Constitution, not alter the meaning of the Constitution itself. That's what they've done by extending "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" to mean "church and state are separated."

The Supreme Court didn't assume the power to judge the constitutionality of laws until several years after the ratification of the Constitution. The key case that solidified this power was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (I think). However, I really don't have a problem with them saying that a law is or isn't legal. I hope I made that clear enough above. So what should their decision about the pledge be? They should let it stay, but with the qualification that no one be forced to say it. What impact SHOULD it have? I'm really not sure, other than letting people pledge or not pledge however they want.

Chris: You can strip the religious weight from both sides, but you haven't stripped your own bias. Words like "hysterical mob justice" and the allegation that it wasn't "right, fair or just" show that you're coloring the entire issue with your own feelings, not logic.

quote:

---

Chris: You can strip the religious weight from both sides, but you haven't stripped your own bias. Words like "hysterical mob justice" and the allegation that it wasn't "right, fair or just" show that you're coloring the entire issue with your own feelings, not logic.

---

Chris: My opinions can be found in my previous posts. And I'd like to call into question your use of the words "right," "fair," and "just." Everyone has different standards of rightness, fairness, and justness. You can't base a logical argument off of your perception of what's fair.

1. Should "under God" have been added to the Pledge in the first place?
In my opinion, no. It restricts the previously all-encompassing Pledge so that it no longer covers the largest majority of Americans possible.

2. Does "under God" violate the First Amendment's stricture against establishing a state religion?
In my opinion, probably not. It's still vague enough so that it can be claimed that no specific religion was intended. I still consider it a mistake, though, as it does establish an environment of religious belief in a secular patriotic statement.

3. Does saying "under God" in the Pledge have an effect on schoolkids? Does leaving the words out have an effect?
Most of them, probably not. For many kids "God" has become, through repetition, essentially a null word.
For those who devoutly believe in a god, or for those who devoutly believe in other gods, or whose religious beliefs do not allow the utterance of the word "god" in public, or for those who devoutly believe there is no god, yes, it can make a difference. In school, anything that sets you aside from the group can be used as a weapon against you. Kids can be cruel, and this can offer ammunition. Of course, so can praying over your meal at lunch, wearing the wrong religious symbol around your neck, etc.
By the way - it's been said, again and again, that the students can just omit that phrase if they don't believe in it. What if the teacher doesn't?

4. Should the phrase "under God" be removed from the Pledge?
In my opinion, yes, for lots of reasons besides my own agnosticism.

I resent the implication that if I don't believe in God, I'm not as good an American.
I don't like the reinforcement of the concept that God likes us best, because it adds an arrogant feel to our dealings with other countries. If we define ourselves by our religion, even our majority religion, then conflicts with other religious countries will have an "our god vs their god" basis and no compromise would ever be possible.
I don't like the thought that we have god-given rights. We enjoy the rights we have because people were willing to fight and die for them, and if we think those rights are granted to us at birth then we're less likely to defend them as ferociously as we should.
Replacing our inspiring, all-inclusive country's motto E Pluribus Unum ("Out of Many, One" with In God We Trust was another massive mistake, and one that also came out of the godless commie witchhunt.

And if I DO have four or five arguments, it's because people are raising so many related questions in an effort to circumvent the original question: Does the pledge violate the Constitution? Since I've already discussed all those questions, I'm not going to repeat myself. However, there is one thing I'd like to address:

"I resent the implication that if I don't believe in God, I'm not as good an American."

This may be a stupid, uneducated question on my part, but aside from occasional stupid comments from politicians or regular folk, do you actually run into this opinion very often? I have a hard time believing that there are very many people out there who view faith and citizenship so synonymously and criticize those who disagree. I don't believe I've ever witnessed it. If you have, please fill me in.

I'd also like to ask you about your beliefs about rights. You say that if a right is given at birth, then we're not as likely to defend it. I really don't see how you've come to that conclusion. Would you disagree that the right to live comes with the fact of being alive? Does a newborn have no right to live because it has no capacity to defend that right? Conversely, the defense of a supposed right does not mean that such a right exists.

quote:

---

You've completely lost me again, Chris. Are you saying those are MY arguments?

---

quote:

---

This may be a stupid, uneducated question on my part, but aside from occasional stupid comments from politicians or regular folk, do you actually run into this opinion very often?

---

quote:

---

I have a hard time believing that there are very many people out there who view faith and citizenship so synonymously and criticize those who disagree. I don't believe I've ever witnessed it. If you have, please fill me in.

---

quote:

---

Would you disagree that the right to live comes with the fact of being alive?

---

If rights were so integral to our being, why did we have to have a war and a constitutional amendment to grant those rights to blacks? Shouldn't they have had them all the time? If so, how could they be taken away?

quote:

---

If rights are not universal, but only exist if people are willing to fight and die for them, then there is no universal right and wrong.

---

quote:

---

Thus, it CANNOT be wrong to leave "under God" in the pledge as long as the people define it to be right. The concept of relative truth destroys itself.

---

And sometimes there are issues upon which the majority is flat wrong, and there must be ways to address them. The founders of our country were wise enough to include protection for the minority opinion, and methods to bring it up. Otherwise we would not have had black emancipation, women's suffrage, or any of the other situations where the majority opinion was ultimately overruled. I don't place the Pledge in this company, however, this is only in response to your question about relative truth.

To go to your stated question: Does the pledge violate the Constitution?
In my opinion, no. The change was made legally and supported afterwards. The fact that I think it wrong and exclusionary doesn't override that.
I don't think the country was in its right mind when the change was made, however, so I must wonder how binding it was

You are comparing something like this to black discrimination and womens suffrage? The reason why the majority was overruled then was because they majority was causing great suffering. I don't see how the "under God" phrase in the pledge causes great suffering. You were right when you said it was wrong to put "under God" in 1954, but to take it out now would only mean one thing: Atheists and agnostics want to get "brainwashing" out of our schools. It does not establish a offical religion just by saying "under God" in the pledge, but it can be shakily argued that the requirement to recite it establishes a state religion. The only arguable point is that the enforcement of daily recitation establishes a state religion.

Will this debate never end?

Sorry about your experiences of being unfairly judged. I'm still somewhat surprised by it, and I'm also surprised that I've never noticed such persecution before. I live in Utah, which is an incredibly religious and often judgmental place. Maybe it's just because I'm not experiencing it. It's easy not to notice things that don't affect you.

"If rights were so integral to our being, why did we have to have a war and a constitutional amendment to grant those rights to blacks?"

Because the people in power weren't giving them their inborn rights. By your reasoning, blacks only acquired the same rights as whites after they fought for them. Before fighting for those rights, they had no rights. At least, that seems to be what you're saying. And I should point out that your definition of "rights" is still convoluted. You're saying something is a right if you (or others) fight or die for it. So basically, if I attack someone with a gun and I kill him, then I had the right to do so because I was willing to fight for it. I think you're confusing the words "right" and "freedom." They're far from synonymous.

"There is the right and wrong that the peoples of the world have agreed upon, drawn from observation and history and philosophy and religious stories. These rights vary wildly from country to country, of course."

You're still saying that rights are relative because they vary. Sure, there's some overlap, but that doesn't make them universal. At the risk of sounding like I'm arguing for relativism, let me just restate that rights must be universal and intrinsic, but they aren't always recognized. Of course, "having" the right doesn't mean you're free to exercise it. Also, being able to do something doesn't give you the right. Anyway, we're drifting completely off the subject, so let's save that discussion for another day.

"Does the pledge violate the Constitution?
In my opinion, no."

Then what are you even arguing for? If you say it's constitutional but morally wrong, then you should be trying to convince me why your morals are right, from which it would follow that we need to further amend the Constitution.

"I must wonder how binding it was."

It's not binding at all. It's just a pledge. Anyone who tries to bind someone to it is violating free speech.

Wetchik: Unfortunately, I don't think this will ever end. It really is unfortunate, because I'm really tired of this argument.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Here is what it means in more simple terms:

“Congress can’t make laws in regard to an organization or institution, and they can’t stop people from practicing their own religion.”

Chris you spoke of mathematical logic earlier, well here is some of mine:
1. If, organization and institution are synonyms of establishment, and the pledge is neither an organization nor an institution, then the pledge is not an establishment (transitive property if a=b and b=c, then a=c but this is the inverse of transitive property).
2. There was no reason to add it in the first place, but that doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional.
3. You can’t argue that establishment in this context is not a noun because the part of speech after “an” is always a noun. That’s basic grammar and it doesn’t take SCOTUM to realize that. Anybody can make that interpretation of the amendment.

Considering all these, on what grounds can you call the pledge unconstitutional? You can’t. This should end the debate quite nicely.