Knights Ask to Intervene in Pledge Case
bucke...@nospam.net
http://www.kofc.org/un/news/releases/detail.cfm?id=7539
5/10/2005
Eight Knights of Columbus families in the Sacramento, Calif., area and the
Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus have asked a federal court for
leave to intervene in a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of
the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. All are represented by
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C. public interest
law firm that specializes in cases involving the free exercise of religion.
The Knights of Columbus played a key role in persuading Congress to pass
legislation adding the words "under God" to the Pledge in 1954. Knights
throughout the United States began reciting the Pledge that way in 1951,
after the Board of Directors adopted a resolution mandating that the new
Pledge be formally recited in each of the Order's 750 Fourth Degree
assemblies.
The Supreme Council adopted a resolution urging Congress to modify the
Pledge in 1952, and after President Eisenhower signed the bill on Flag Day,
1954, he wrote a letter to Supreme Knight Luke Hart acknowledging the
Knights' role "in the movement to have the words 'under God' added to our
Pledge of Allegiance."
The latest court challenge to the Pledge was filed by California physician
and lawyer Michael Newdow in January 2005. Last year, the U.S. Supreme
Court threw out an earlier Newdow lawsuit on the Pledge on grounds that he
did not have custody of the child on whose behalf he filed the action. This
time, he has eight co-plaintiffs and has sued Congress, the United States,
the state of California, and five school districts.
In the filing, the defendant-intervenors "respectfully request permission
to intervene in this case to protect their substantial interest in
defending ... the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance that is
recited daily in California's public schools."
Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson said that direct intervention in the case
"will enable the Knights of Columbus to join the fight inside the
courtroom, and thus help ensure that 'under God' remains in the Pledge
where it belongs." The full text of the legal documents can be accessed by
clicking on the links below.
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene
http://www.becketfund.org/files/ddcfae785ecf70566fb503d23124ae11.pdf
Motion to Intervene
http://www.becketfund.org/files/49e5468d36c717abbde38a57f08b5692.pdf
Answer of Defendant-Intervenor John Carey, et al. to First Amended
Complaint
http://www.becketfund.org/files/ee1f7dcf1e6bfa29c456631a82941cb0.pdf
**************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
Hugh Gibbons
bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
> Knights Ask to Intervene in Pledge Case
> http://www.kofc.org/un/news/releases/detail.cfm?id=7539
>
>
> 5/10/2005
>
>
> Eight Knights of Columbus families in the Sacramento, Calif., area and the
> Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus have asked a federal court for
> leave to intervene in a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of
> the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. All are represented by
> The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C. public interest
> law firm that specializes in cases involving the free exercise of religion.
If anything's likely to help Newdow's case, this is it.
==> ALL COMMENTS IMO <==
Gray Shockley
(in article <party-195184....@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com>):
>> 5/10/2005
>>
>>
>> Eight Knights of Columbus families in the Sacramento, Calif., area and the
>> Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus have asked a federal court for
>> leave to intervene in a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of
>> the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. All are represented by
>> The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C. public interest
>> law firm that specializes in cases involving the free exercise of religion.
>
> If anything's likely to help Newdow's case, this is it.
That the KCs think that he is wrong?
Are you saying that because a Roman fraternal organization - the
same one that pushed so hard for the original change - being, still,
for the "under god" phrase is going to help Newdow?
Why?
A title such as "The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty" is pretty
much a dead-give-away that their version of "Religious Liberty" is
like "Professional Amatuers", "Jumbo Shrimp" and "'Christian'
Identity".
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
If someone knows the answer before
knowing the question, this has nothing
to do with rationality and everything
to do with religion.
ZenIsWhen
news:5kk7e19lnk36dmruk...@4ax.com...
IOW - he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution, freedom of religion, or
democracy; he wants the "state" religion to be what HE wants!
Hugh Gibbons
Gray Shockley <graysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:27:09 -0500, Hugh Gibbons wrote
> (in article <party-195184....@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com>):
>
> >> 5/10/2005
> >>
> >>
> >> Eight Knights of Columbus families in the Sacramento, Calif., area and the
> >> Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus have asked a federal court for
> >> leave to intervene in a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of
> >> the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. All are represented by
> >> The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C. public interest
> >> law firm that specializes in cases involving the free exercise of religion.
> >
> > If anything's likely to help Newdow's case, this is it.
>
>
> That the KCs think that he is wrong?
>
> Are you saying that because a Roman fraternal organization - the
> same one that pushed so hard for the original change - being, still,
> for the "under god" phrase is going to help Newdow?
>
>
> Why?
They were the group that originally got Congress to tread if not actually
into establishment of religion, then far too close by adding "under God"
to the pledge. It's fine if the KCs want to say it that way, but to have
them weigh in on the importance of having kids in public schools say it
that way can only make it utterly clear that the state is acting on
behalf of a religious organization. The reasons they will express for
its importance will tend to confirm this. The Knights aren't going to
use weasel-words like government lawyers have. They'll state confidently
that American kids ought to be taught to believe in God. Unless I
underestimate them greatly.
Gray Shockley
(in article <party-B6571E....@news-fe-02.texas.rr.com>):
Yeah but that's "just another" religious group (the KC) and another
"public interest" group who - as I stated before - are to "religious
liberty" the same way that a wack would state "Christian Identity".
I would like to think you're right but I betcha that there have
beena buncha law clerks staying up late at night trying to find the
narrowest possible figment on which to base a ruling that allows
"unber gob" that won't result in a new suit fifteen minutes later.
And, remember, that for a majority decision to be "precedent" the
Justices have to, basically, be of one mind in the "why" of their
decision" Three affirmations with three different reasons for the
affirmation (with four of five justices signing onto all three)
would be an "on sale, for this day only" sort of thing.
gray
J Strickland
Regardless of how one feels about "under God" in the Pledge, Newdow is
taking a cheap shot at the five school districts. The districts are merely
following the State Education Code, and should be held harmless in this
action. The school districts are diverting funds from the classroom to fight
this challenge, but all school districts in the state will have to alter
what they do if they are following the State Education Code and Newdow
prevails.
Newdow taking aim at the school districts does not give him any additional
power in this case, and it only serves to harm the very children he claims
to be helping. I think Newdow is right to go after the state, and the
Congress, but he should leave the schools alone. His beef is not the
schools, but is the Education Code itself, which is the state.
> In the filing, the defendant-intervenors "respectfully request permission
> to intervene in this case to protect their substantial interest in
> defending ... the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance that is
> recited daily in California's public schools."
>
> Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson said that direct intervention in the case
> "will enable the Knights of Columbus to join the fight inside the
> courtroom, and thus help ensure that 'under God' remains in the Pledge
> where it belongs." The full text of the legal documents can be accessed by
> clicking on the links below.
>
I hope the Knights are given intervenor status so they can go inside the
court and support the Pledge as it is currently written and recited by the
children of the State of California.
J Strickland
"Gray Shockley" <graysh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF0B4838...@news.giganews.com...
I am not sure what the affect of the KCs will be, but I think the decision
will be that there is no "establishing" going on, and the Pledge will stand.
There are several ways to insert Under God into the Pledge that would
certainly be an establishment, and therefore illegal. But, the way (location
in the sentence) that under God was inserted is not an establishment, and
does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.
If Newdow prevails, it won't be due to "establishment" issues, it'll be from
elsewhere. Knowing what littlle I know about Newdow, establishment is his
main argument, so if he fails then it will be because he went after
establishment, and since there is little left, the Pledge will stand.
Bob LeChevalier
>Regardless of how one feels about "under God" in the Pledge, Newdow is
>taking a cheap shot at the five school districts
No. He is merely filing the case under the conditions that prior
court rulings have indicated is necessary in order to have them accept
the case.
>The districts are merely following the State Education Code, and should be held harmless in this
>action.
They might be, but Newdow has to challenge the districts. One cannot
sue the Education Code; one must sue a specific individual or group.
>The school districts are diverting funds from the classroom to fight
>this challenge,
The state can choose to reimburse them. But all school districts have
a legal fund.
>but all school districts in the state will have to alter
>what they do if they are following the State Education Code and Newdow
>prevails.
Good.
>Newdow taking aim at the school districts does not give him any additional
>power in this case,
It gives him (or rather his clients) standing, which was the issue in
the last case.
>and it only serves to harm the very children he claims to be helping.
Not at all. The state did the harm to the children by enacting an
unconstitutional law as part of the State Education Code.
>I think Newdow is right to go after the state, and the
>Congress, but he should leave the schools alone. His beef is not the
>schools, but is the Education Code itself, which is the state.
That may be so, but legal standing doesn't always follow logic. He
has to sue the party that most directly affects him and his clients.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
J Strickland
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:f7sde1la5fff3t2ej...@4ax.com...
> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>Regardless of how one feels about "under God" in the Pledge, Newdow is
>>taking a cheap shot at the five school districts
>
> No. He is merely filing the case under the conditions that prior
> court rulings have indicated is necessary in order to have them accept
> the case.
>
Is that true? I know he went after the school district where his daughter
attended, and he also went after one where she would have attended if some
other act came to pass, but that second district was taken off of the case.
I don't really care about the districts, except that my reading says his
beef is not with the school because they are just following the State
Education Code. So, if Newdow attacks the state (sorry for the inflamatory
wording there), and wins, then his attack on the school is moot because the
education code will have to be changed, and the schools will simply follow
the new code.
>>The districts are merely following the State Education Code, and should be
>>held harmless in this
>>action.
>
> They might be, but Newdow has to challenge the districts. One cannot
> sue the Education Code; one must sue a specific individual or group.
>
Well, he is suing the state, doesn't that suffice, and why not?
>>The school districts are diverting funds from the classroom to fight
>>this challenge,
>
> The state can choose to reimburse them. But all school districts have
> a legal fund.
>
True, but that fund is to protect the district from physical harm that might
occur if a student gets hurt. The fund is not meant to fight to follow the
state mandated education code.
>>but all school districts in the state will have to alter
>>what they do if they are following the State Education Code and Newdow
>>prevails.
>
> Good.
>
Maybe, maybe not. But the schools should not have to defend against this
because the State is making them do it. It is proper to argue that the
Pledge should be changed, as much as I disagree, but it isn't proper to go
after the districts for following the education code. The schools are not
acting independently, that's why he shouldn't go after them. If the schools
were doing this apart from the education code, then I would agree that they
are a valid target.
>>Newdow taking aim at the school districts does not give him any additional
>>power in this case,
>
> It gives him (or rather his clients) standing, which was the issue in
> the last case.
>
Him, his clients, the same thing. Functional equivelents for a general
discussion.
Standing is a good point. They are going after the districts because they
have kids there. Newdow failed in his first bid because he didn't
technically have a kid, and therefore no standing. These people all have a
kid, and they are in the various school districts. I can follow that.
>>and it only serves to harm the very children he claims to be helping.
>
> Not at all. The state did the harm to the children by enacting an
> unconstitutional law as part of the State Education Code.
>
>>I think Newdow is right to go after the state, and the
>>Congress, but he should leave the schools alone. His beef is not the
>>schools, but is the Education Code itself, which is the state.
>
> That may be so, but legal standing doesn't always follow logic. He
> has to sue the party that most directly affects him and his clients.
>
That's a good point. I don't agree, but I follow your reasoning.
Brian Westley
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:f7sde1la5fff3t2ej...@4ax.com...
>> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>Regardless of how one feels about "under God" in the Pledge, Newdow is
>>>taking a cheap shot at the five school districts
>>
>> No. He is merely filing the case under the conditions that prior
>> court rulings have indicated is necessary in order to have them accept
>> the case.
>>
>Is that true?
YES, YOU STUPID FUCK!!!
lojbab, I know you post very thorough legal explanations, but
with Strickland, you have to use what actually works. He
can't understand actual subtle concepts.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:f7sde1la5fff3t2ej...@4ax.com...
>> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>Regardless of how one feels about "under God" in the Pledge, Newdow is
>>>taking a cheap shot at the five school districts
>>
>> No. He is merely filing the case under the conditions that prior
>> court rulings have indicated is necessary in order to have them accept
>> the case.
>
>Is that true? I know he went after the school district where his daughter
>attended, and he also went after one where she would have attended if some
>other act came to pass, but that second district was taken off of the case.
His beef is with anyone that he can successfully sue in order to fight
the Pledge battle and get a real decision this time. He'd sue you if
it would get him a USSC hearing.
>>>The districts are merely following the State Education Code, and should be
>>>held harmless in this
>>>action.
>>
>> They might be, but Newdow has to challenge the districts. One cannot
>> sue the Education Code; one must sue a specific individual or group.
>
>Well, he is suing the state, doesn't that suffice, and why not?
One would have to ask the experts on legal standing, of which he is
now one, having fought that battle once.
>>>The school districts are diverting funds from the classroom to fight
>>>this challenge,
>>
>> The state can choose to reimburse them. But all school districts have
>> a legal fund.
>
>True, but that fund is to protect the district from physical harm that might
>occur if a student gets hurt.
No. It is to pay for defense of lawsuits, whoever they are brought
by, for whatever reason. Most such lawsuits are NOT brought as a
result of students getting hurt. There are labor and contract
disputes, special ed law cases, cases where someone wants to attend a
school other than the one they are assigned to, environmental impacts
when a new school is to be built, and every sort of liability known to
man - if someone can find an excuse to sue any government agency, they
do, because the government has unlimited pockets.
>The fund is not meant to fight to follow the state mandated education code.
It's meant to defend any sort of lawsuit, no matter how frivolous (and
there are a lot of lawsuits that are far more frivolous than the
Newdow case - again because of the government "deep pockets" syndrome.
>Maybe, maybe not. But the schools should not have to defend against this
>because the State is making them do it. It is proper to argue that the
>Pledge should be changed, as much as I disagree, but it isn't proper to go
>after the districts for following the education code.
One goes after whoever they can.
[You seem to have agreed after reading the rest of my post.]
Gray Shockley
(in article <6MCdnSEZXMe...@ez2.net>):
> I am not sure what the affect of the KCs will be, but I think the decision
> will be that there is no "establishing" going on, and the Pledge will stand.
> There are several ways to insert Under God into the Pledge that would
> certainly be an establishment, and therefore illegal. But, the way (location
> in the sentence) that under God was inserted is not an establishment, and
> does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.
Congress shall make no law [except
for this one time and it's okay because
lots and lots of voters agree and it's
a cheap way to buy votes].
God is groovey and nifty, too;
And, in all probablities, a white male, too.
Where do the Europeans get off on praying
to the United States' God?
There's reasons to think that the Light-Bearer and the Morning
Star may have just gotten some bad press. After all, remember that
Job got mind-raped by those two deities getting drunk and making a
bar bet.
Of course there's no reason to think that Mrs Job and the
children were amused. Or the servants. And PETA is gonna kick some
godly ass before this is over.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
J God is a lightsucker.
J Strickland
Not so much agreed, as followed the drift.
J Strickland
"Brian Westley" <wes...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11ee1m8...@corp.supernews.com...
> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> writes:
>
>>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>news:f7sde1la5fff3t2ej...@4ax.com...
>>> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>Regardless of how one feels about "under God" in the Pledge, Newdow is
>>>>taking a cheap shot at the five school districts
>>>
>>> No. He is merely filing the case under the conditions that prior
>>> court rulings have indicated is necessary in order to have them accept
>>> the case.
>>>
>
>>Is that true?
>
> YES, YOU STUPID FUCK!!!
Attack the messenger, never the message. How many times have I seen this
before?
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|"J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>:|>news:f7sde1la5fff3t2ej...@4ax.com...
>:|>> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|>>>Regardless of how one feels about "under God" in the Pledge, Newdow is
>:|>>>taking a cheap shot at the five school districts
>:|>>
>:|>> No. He is merely filing the case under the conditions that prior
>:|>> court rulings have indicated is necessary in order to have them accept
>:|>> the case.
>:|>
>:|>Is that true? I know he went after the school district where his daughter
>:|>attended, and he also went after one where she would have attended if some
>:|>other act came to pass, but that second district was taken off of the case.
>:|
>:|His beef is with anyone that he can successfully sue in order to fight
>:|the Pledge battle and get a real decision this time. He'd sue you if
>:|it would get him a USSC hearing.
Hehehehehe
He is sueing one person for Libel. Jeffy better watch his comments, Mike
Newdow does sue for libel.
He already won one such case.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|I am not sure what the affect of the KCs will be, but I think
It's been shown time and time again you don't think.
>:|the decision
>:|will be that there is no "establishing" going on, and the Pledge will stand.
What do you base this on?
You are aware the judge said he felt Newdow had a case?
You are aware of the 9th Circuit ruling that overturned another Federal
District judge?
You are aware of the two 9th Circuit rulings on this matter, right?
You are aware the USSC didn't rule on the merits, the very same merits set
up by the 9Th Circuit.
Yes, jeffy, legally speaking it's as if those 9th Circuit rulings never
happened technically speaking but these rulings did happen that much from
those rulings can be used as persuasive argument now.
>:|There are several ways to insert Under God into the Pledge that would
>:|certainly be an establishment, and therefore illegal. But, the way (location
>:|in the sentence) that under God was inserted is not an establishment, and
>:|does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.
The way is was inserted --location in the sentence?
What a joke!
Hey jeffy you hear hear of this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion..."
Exactly who make the law in 1954 that turned a totally secular Pledge into
a pledge that was respecting and endorsing a monotheism religion, even
Christianity?
However, jeffy, the courts don't want to deal with that so this judge
dismissed anything and everything but the nuts and bolts of the school
issue
Pledge lawsuit may have narrow ruling
Federal judge hints he'll restrict lawsuit to school issue only.
By Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Story appeared in Metro section, Page B1
http://www.sacbee.com/content/community_news/elk_grove_laguna/story/13259666p-14102221c.html
Some excerpts
A Sacramento federal judge suggested Monday that he will dismiss parts of
atheist Michael Newdow's lawsuit challenging the phrase "under God" in the
Pledge of Allegiance because it ventures into areas where the judge is
powerless.
"I have no authority to tell Congress to change the law," U.S. District
Judge Lawrence K. Karlton told Newdow.
Congress, the lead defendant in Newdow's suit, added "under God" to the
pledge in 1954.
Karlton indicated that the suit will be pared to the narrow question of
whether it is constitutional to ask children attending classes in
Sacramento-area school districts to recite the pledge.
The justices did not rule on the merits of Newdow's arguments, and that
fact seemed to loom large in Karlton's mind as he listened to Monday's
arguments.
The 9th Circuit ruled it is an unconstitutional blending of church and
state for public school students to pledge to God.
But the attorney representing the school districts argued Monday that the
Supreme Court's reversal, while not addressing the merits of Newdow's
claim, rendered the 9th Circuit's decision null.
Karlton did not seem nearly as sure as Cassidy that the judge is not still
bound by the decision of the 9th Circuit, since it is the court he is
directly answerable to and is the highest court to have ruled on the
merits. He took the matter under submission and will issue a written ruling
later.
***********************************************
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071801047.html
Despite his indication about limiting the lawsuit, the judge acknowledged
that Newdow may have a valid point about the pledge in schools. The words
"under God" were inserted into the pledge by Congress in 1954.
"There is nothing whatsoever that requires acknowledging God to love this
country," Karlton said.
After Monday's hearing, Newdow appeared unmoved by the judge's expected
narrowing of the lawsuit. He said any decision was likely to be appealed.
***************************************************************************************
>:|If Newdow prevails, it won't be due to "establishment" issues, it'll be from
>:|elsewhere. Knowing what littlle I know about Newdow,
You know nothing about him. However, that never stopped you from making up
a hell of a lot of lies about him in the past.
>:|establishment is his
>:|main argument,
How do you know? Did you read his brief?
I have, he sent me a copy for my opinion.
You can read it, but it will give you a headache
I will give you a URL where you can read it
But you won't, you never do.
The fact of the matter is Mike makes a number of arguments covering the
entire spectrum from the amount of money the schools spend in saying the
Pledge to constitutional issues and everything in between.
>:| so if he fails then it will be because he went after
>:|establishment, and since there is little left, the Pledge will stand.
Jeffy, the odds are real good this District Judge will rule in favor of
Newdow. For or against it will be appealed to the Circuit Court.
Whatever happens there, the loser, be it Newdow or the Schools will appeal
it to the USSC
Ultimately Newdow will lost if that court accepts it, not because he is
wrong, because he isn't wrong. He is dead right. He will lose because the
USSC has been taken over by the Radical Religious Right along with the rest
of the government.
BTW JEFFY, MIKE NEWDOW IS FILING A PLEDGE SUIT IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT TOO
NOT ONLY THAT BUT HE IS FILING THE FOLLOWING SUITS TOO:
(1) finish an Appellate Brief in a libel case,
(2) file the Pledge Complaint in the First Circuit (since I finally got a
local attorney, which is required by the Court),
(3) file the "IGWT on the money" case,
Have a nice day (grin
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Regardless of how one feels about "under God" in the Pledge, Newdow is
>:|taking a cheap shot at the five school districts.
Hehehehe.
Dear jeffy
This was how the case was filed
Michael Newdow, in pro per and as counsel
CA SBN: 220444
PO Box 233345
Sacramento, CA 95823
916-427-6669
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-00017-LKK-DAD
THE REV. DR. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, IN PRO PER;
JAN DOE AND PAT DOE, PARENTS; DOECHILD, A MINOR CHILD;
JAN ROE; PARENT; ROECHILD-1 AND ROECHILD-2, MINOR CHILDREN;
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
PETER LEFEVRE, LAW REVISION COUNSEL;
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA;
RICHARD J. RIORDAN, CALIFORNIA SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION,
THE ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“EGUSD”);
DR. STEVEN LADD, SUPERINTENDENT, EGUSD;
THE SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“SCUSD”);
DR. M. MAGDALENA CARRILLO MEJIA, SUPERINTENDENT, SCUSD;
THE ELVERTA JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT (“EJESD”);
DR. DIANNA MANGERICH, SUPERINTENDENT, EJESD;
THE RIO LINDA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (“RLUSD”);
FRANK S. PORTER, SUPERINTENDENT, RLUSD;
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs allege as follows:
*********************************************
So you see jeffy he filed against the who group.
I love it how you keep making a fool of yourself over and over again.
>:|The districts are merely
>:|following the State Education Code, and should be held harmless in this
>:|action. The school districts are diverting funds from the classroom to fight
>:|this challenge, but all school districts in the state will have to alter
>:|what they do if they are following the State Education Code and Newdow
>:|prevails.
>
Oh dear, do you know how much money the schools spend to say "under God"
I have it here and will look it up for you if you really want to know.
:|
>:|Newdow taking aim at the school districts does not give him any additional
>:|power in this case,
and your evidence for this is?
You can post it here ---------------------->
>:|and it only serves to harm the very children he claims
>:|to be helping.
and your evidence for this is?
You can post it here ---------------------->
I have already shown he is including the whole group not just a couple
school districts
>:|I think Newdow is right to go after the state, and the
>:|Congress, but he should leave the schools alone.
Ahhhh, poor jeffy
it is in the schools where the act is taking place.
Guess what jeffy. if he didn't include them, the judge would toss case out
for being improperly filed.
There are certain rules that have to be followed to file a law suit.
Dumb, dumb and dumber you are.
To read the briefs and other important things see below
Restore Our Pledge of Allegiance
http://www.restorethepledge.com/
Click on Current litigation
you will find all the briefs filed in this case thus far.
From Mike Newdow
"We had a hearing on the Pledge case in Federal District Court on the 18th.
Now we wait."
******************************
SOME BACKGROUND THOUGHTS:
What's the Big Deal? The Unconstitutionality of God in the
Pledge of Allegiance John E. Thompson∗
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/v.38_2/thompson.pdf
[Excerpt]
Many Americans can recall reciting the Pledge of Allegiance as
schoolchildren. This patriotic ritual is part of the common experience
of those raised in the United States—perhaps not a signiªcant personal
experience for most people, but nonetheless one that is shared and
remembered by all those who participated. Until last year, most
Americans had probably never considered that the routine recitation of
the Pledge in the public schools might violate the Constitution's
prohibition on government establishments of religion, or, to use the
common phrase, might breach the "separation of church and state."
Much of the country was shocked when a federal appeals court ruled
in June 2002 that the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge
of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit held that the federal statute codifying the Pledge, as
well as a California school district's policy providing for recitation
of the Pledge, violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.1 In February 2003, the Ninth Circuit amended its decision,
ªnding the school district policy unconstitutional on narrower
grounds, while declining to address the validity of the federal
statute.2 At the same time, the full Ninth Circuit denied a motion to
rehear the case en banc.3
This Article suggests that the Ninth Circuit's decision reºects a
valid interpretation of both the Constitution's meaning and of the
Supreme Court's Establishment Clause doctrine. It also argues that the
theory most likely to be invoked to overrule the decision—a theory
that can be described as "historical acknowledgement"—should be rejected.
Part I will describe the Ninth Circuit panel's rationale, in both its
June 2002 opinion and its February 2003 amended opinion, for declaring
------------------------------------
∗ B.A., Columbia University, 1992; M.I.A., Columbia University, 1993;
J.D., Harvard Law School, 2003. I would like to thank Professor
Richard Fallon for his invaluable guidance, and the editors of the
Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review for their patience and
support.
1 Newdow v. U.S. Cong. (Newdow I), 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002),
amended by Newdow v. U.S. Cong. (Newdow II), No. 00-16423, 2003 WL
554742 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2003) (order stayed).
2 Newdow v. U.S. Cong. (Newdow II), No. 00-16423, 2003 WL 554742 (9th
Cir. Feb. 28, 2003).
3 Id.
[end excerpt]
*************************************
The Pledge Protection Act: The Lunacy of Letting Only State Courts
Interpret the First Amendment
Thursday, Sep. 23, 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040923.html
The Pennsylvania Mandatory School Pledge of Allegiance Law: Why A Federal
Appeals Court Was Right to Strike It Down
Thursday, Aug. 26, 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040826.html
The Supreme Court Decision on the Pledge of Allegiance Case:
Why It Raises Federalism Issues
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamil...@aol.com
Thursday, Jun. 17, 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040617.html
The Court Hears Oral Argument in the "Under God" Pledge of Allegiance Case:
Why the Court Should Reject This Pledge, and Why the Department of Justice
Is Wrong To Support It
Thursday, Mar. 25, 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040325.html
The Ongoing Fight for Religious Dominance: From The Secret Service Agent's
Slur, To Critiques Of The Ninth Circuit's Pledge Of Allegiance Decision
Thursday, Aug. 01, 2002
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020801.html
***********************************************************************************
* Latest Developments in the Pledge Case (Posted March 29, 2004)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/pledge2.htm
* One Nation, Under God--Indicative of a Larger Problem by Ethan Young
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/ethan.htm
* Removed From The Legislative Province by Neal Blanchett, Esq. (Looks
at the Pledge controversy from a legal point of view)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/blanchrt.htm
Thoughts on Power, Ceremonial Deism &Amp: Public Religion From a Variety of
Sources
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/c-deism.htm
***************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
>:|
>:|
>:|
>:|
>:|
Brian Westley
Lots. Because you're a stupid fuck.
I'm not even saying this to be insulting. You really are genuinely stupid.
You enter legal discussions without having the slightest idea of the legal
issues involved, and you show no signs of being educable.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Attack the messenger, never the message. How many times have I seen this
>:|before?
There is a very real very valid reason you keep seeing it in your case
You have earned it.
You don't know what you are talking about, you never study or do your
homework, you lie, you make things up, you offer silly stupid personal
based on nothign but you think this or that.
You troll
You make a false statement, you get shown with data you are incorredt. you
wait a few weeks and say it again in another thread.
That is why you get attacked.
You forget this:
"Jeff Strickland" <spamc...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>:|But the Adams son was a child, or relative child, when the Adams father was
>:|Prez.
John Adams 1735-1826.
President 1797-1801
John Q. Adams 1767-1848
President 1825-1829
J.Q. Adams was approx 30 years old when his father was elected president.
That hardly makes him a child or relative child
One more time jeffy dazzles us with his ignorance
********************************************************************
Jeffy - I am "against" vouchers but I have offered every pro voucher
argument ever offered on the internet in voucher discussions for at least a
year to two years now - strickland
******************************************
[Jeffy had asked another]
>Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?
To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
**********************************
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
**********
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
*******************************
[To Jeff Strickland]
I find it "interesting" that you are so incredibly stupid that you totally
missed the citation to the _New York Times_.
You seem to have remembered to take your one-a-day stupid pills.
Gray Shockley
**********
"Jeff Strickland" <bee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I see more intolerance.
"Gray Shockley" <gray...@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
Oh, no, no, no.
You neither "think" nor "see".
Is that better?
*******************************
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> I find it interesting that when Carol is unable to find the link, you ignore
> the request for assistance. But, when I am unable to find the link (and
> volunteer twice that I have looked), you jump in with a snide remark that
> "the search was not too difficult," as though I am the idiot.
[Joni said]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you are an idiot. I meant to just
come right out and say you are an idiot.
**************************************
[another time Joni asked Jeffy]
Were you born this stupid or did you take a class?
**************************************
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:12:45 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
> The ACLU is not mentioned in this story, but I believe they have been
> mentioned in other stories on the same topic with the same county. Perhaps I
> am being a bit reactionary to point my boney fingers at the ACLU,
You don't mind that some of us consider you a pschopathetic liar, do you?
After all, you seem to create "facts" just like your spiritual
great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Richard "I'll Dick You" Cheney.
Are you so [drunk, stoned, Bushed, freaked out] that you even realize how
much - and how many - of your posts are lies?
Are you truly stupid or totally insane?
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy was asked]
Can you back this up with truthful citations or is this just more of your
"lies manufactured especially for any and all occasions by Jeffie
Strickland"?
Gray Shockley
Vicksburg, MS
**************************************
As you, Jeffie the Wack Strickland, are quite obviously the product of no
education whatsoever.
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy had said]
>It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
>rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
>rearing.
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
*********************************************************
Said to Jeff Strickland
Because you are clueless, seeing an objection when there is none, and
failing to understand the objection that I do have.
Aren't you again showing your cluelessness? Yes.
lojbab
********************************************************
[Larry Hewitt said to Jeff Strickland]
> > Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
> > report
> > that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
> > acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
> > defeat.
> >
> > larry
[jeff replied ]
> Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
[Larry naidled jeff with]
So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a fool of myself
in
public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??
Nah, you're just a rightard liar.
Larry
*********************************************************
J.C.
"J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:c7KdnaDzKcC...@ez2.net...
The reason he sues is because he can profit off of the tax payers who have
to pay his legal fees.
--
Make it just one gnat to email.
J.C.
J.C.
Your language demonstrates a certain level of education in itself.
Cary Kittrell
>
> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:c7KdnaDzKcC...@ez2.net...
> >
> > "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > news:8rcee1hk4lhhp31qk...@4ax.com...
> > > "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > >>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > >>news:f7sde1la5fff3t2ej...@4ax.com...
{...}
> > >>Maybe, maybe not. But the schools should not have to defend against this
> > >>because the State is making them do it. It is proper to argue that the
> > >>Pledge should be changed, as much as I disagree, but it isn't proper to
> go
> > >>after the districts for following the education code.
> > >
> > > One goes after whoever they can.
> > >
> > > [You seem to have agreed after reading the rest of my post.]
> >
> >
> > Not so much agreed, as followed the drift.
> >
> >
> The reason he sues is because he can profit off of the tax payers who have
> to pay his legal fees.
The government paid Newdow's lawers' fees?
And how do we know this?
More to the point, I'm interested in this exciting new
way to make my fortune. How many lawsuits do you estimate
I would have to bring in order to clear, say, $250,000 a year
in pure profit?
-- cary
J.C.
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:dc8htd$9u7$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Because he said so on the Larry King show. Some kind of legal aid deal that
is open to anyone that wants to sue.
J Strickland
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:d7hfe1l2ek0n9vl60...@4ax.com...
> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>:|I am not sure what the affect of the KCs will be, but I think
>
> It's been shown time and time again you don't think.
>
>>:|the decision
>>:|will be that there is no "establishing" going on, and the Pledge will
>>stand.
>
> What do you base this on?
>
Just my gut feeling. There is no "establishing", that is clear to me. But, I
am not the judge that will rule, so what is clear to me doesn't really
matter.
> You are aware the judge said he felt Newdow had a case?
> You are aware of the 9th Circuit ruling that overturned another Federal
> District judge?
>
I don't give a rat's ass about the 9th, they have been shown time and again
to be anti-social.
<snip rest>
J Strickland
> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> writes:
>>"Brian Westley" <wes...@visi.com> wrote in message
>>news:11ee1m8...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:f7sde1la5fff3t2ej...@4ax.com...
>>>>> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Regardless of how one feels about "under God" in the Pledge, Newdow is
>>>>>>taking a cheap shot at the five school districts
>>>>>
>>>>> No. He is merely filing the case under the conditions that prior
>>>>> court rulings have indicated is necessary in order to have them accept
>>>>> the case.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>Is that true?
>>>
>>> YES, YOU STUPID FUCK!!!
>
>>Attack the messenger, never the message. How many times have I seen this
>>before?
>
> Lots. Because you're a stupid fuck.
Because I take a position opposite of yours? That's rich.
J Strickland
"J.C." <gnat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eLPFe.721877$JR4.2...@fe02.news.easynews.com...
I don't know for sure, but I don't think financial gain is Newdow's
motivation. I am pretty sure he would do this for free. I do not agree with
what he is doing, but I am genuinely convinced that he thinks he is doing us
all a favor.
J Strickland
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:d6hfe1tna4bgg29mk...@4ax.com...
Please, point out any libel that I have done.
J Strickland
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:n7hfe1lk31joa27ja...@4ax.com...
I never said he was ONLY suing the school districts. We all know, or at
least I know, that he is suing a host of people and entities. I just said
that he should not be going after the school districts because they are only
following the state education code. Should Newdow prevail against the state,
and the education code because that is his real target, then the schools
will change their behavior anyway. There is no benefit to him to go after
the school districts except, as Bob pointed out, it gives him standing.
It appears that Newdow actually has to go after the districts in order to
make his case. If this is in fact true, then I withdraw my criticism of him
for taking this particular aim.
jal...@cox.net
>:|I don't know for sure, but I don't think financial gain is Newdow's
>:|motivation.
You have that right.
>:| I am pretty sure he would do this for free.
he pretty much is doing just that.
>:|I do not agree with
>:|what he is doing, but I am genuinely convinced that he thinks he is doing us
>:|all a favor.
He is. He is standing up for the disenfranchised which atheists are and he
is standing up for the rule of law, taking on the theocrats.
**************************************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|The reason he sues is because he can profit off of the tax payers who have
>:|to pay his legal fees.
Another fruit that doesn't know what he is talking about.
I can tell you for a positive fact that Newdow isn't making any money, in
fact he is working 12 hour shifts three weeks out of month in El Paso as a
ER doctor to pay off about half a million in legal fees to Ken Starr and
the other lawyers that represented his ex gf the mother of their child in
the previous law suits
I love the way people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground so
they just make up shit and pass it off as truth
What a bunch of clowns you trolls are.
jal...@cox.net
>:|Because he said so on the Larry King show. Some kind of legal aid deal that
>:|is open to anyone that wants to sue.
I suggest you do some homework.
Legal aid if for people who can't afford lawyers.
I know for a fact that if mike didn't have to commute to Texas three weeks
a month to work 12 hour shifts he wouldn't be doing it.
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|Your language demonstrates a certain level of education in itself.
What does this demonstrate?
People have dealt with jeffy on here for over two years at least.
The guy doesn't have a full deck too much beer and drugs perhaps.
***************************************************************************
See how bright he is:
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy was asked]
Gray Shockley
Vicksburg, MS
Gray Shockley
Larry
*********************************************************
Jeff Strickland said:
>Attack the messenger, never the message. How many times have I seen this
>before?
Lots. Because you're a stupid fuck.
I'm not even saying this to be insulting. You really are genuinely stupid.
You enter legal discussions without having the slightest idea of the legal
issues involved, and you show no signs of being educable.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
************************************************
J Strickland
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bmpfe1hb30s2jcb8n...@4ax.com...
> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>:|I don't know for sure, but I don't think financial gain is Newdow's
>>:|motivation.
>
> You have that right.
>
>>:| I am pretty sure he would do this for free.
>
> he pretty much is doing just that.
>
>>:|I do not agree with
>>:|what he is doing, but I am genuinely convinced that he thinks he is
>>doing us
>>:|all a favor.
>
> He is. He is standing up for the disenfranchised which atheists are and he
> is standing up for the rule of law, taking on the theocrats.
>
Well, may wonders never cease. I finally said something that you generally
agree with. Let me list up the agreements ...
Financial gain is not his motivation.
He's doing it for free.
He thinks he is doing us all a favor.
As for the favors he is doing us, since nobody is being slighted, he is
doing nobody any favors. The government is not establishing religion through
the Pledge. It could be recognizing that religion exists, but nobosy says it
can't recognize the existance of religion. For this reason, I do not agree
with Newdow, but I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that he thinks he
is doing good.
J Strickland
time.
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:m5qfe1hmrb9sa1uu1...@4ax.com...
Brian Westley
>Your language demonstrates a certain level of education in itself.
No, it demonstrates that I don't suffer fools gladly.
You demonstrate that you can't reason well, because
using phrases like "stupid fuck" indicates nothing about
the speaker's education level.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
No, because you're obviously stupid, and ignorant of how the courts
work, yet that doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off.
You really are an ignorant fuck.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
J Strickland
Touche.
At least I can repeatedly avoid using "ignorant fuck" in a sentence to
describe stupid people. Always the messenger, never the message.
I pray that if I ever enter the court system, I don't get legal assistance
from a man, or woman, with as limited a vocabulary as you seem to have. Your
bent for profanity belies your credibility as one that understands anything,
least of all how the courts work.
Gray Shockley
> He is sueing one person for Libel. Jeffy better watch his comments, Mike
> Newdow does sue for libel.
> He already won one such case.
I hope he doesn't try it on UseNet.
Do you have any idea of what would compose
a jury of one's "peers" on UseNet? [shivers]
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
- Jubal Harshaw (Channeled through RAH)
Gray Shockley
(in article <_OudneQpFuf...@ez2.net>):
When the messenger was, quite obviously, designed by a committee
composed of Pat DeLay, Karl Rove, the entire membership of Skull &
Boners, the Southern Baptist Methodists, the incestutous wing of the
Mothers & Brothers of the Republican Sillie Boys & Boys and the
Mormon Tabernacle Choir as well as the obligatory membership of the
patridge in a pear tree, it is best to attack the messenger because
said messenger has garbled the message so drastically that this
messenger is a simmering, simpering fool and her/his/its "side"
would like to see this porker shut her/his/its yap because this
messenger, fortunately, impresses everyone with a mind that s/he/it
is a raving lunatic. And young "J Strickland" and his newly
discovered separated at birth twin, "J.C.", are certainly the kind
of messengers that the lunatic fringe has deliver its idiotic
messages. The messengers /are/ the message. And they make even other
fringe groupies start twitching.
I must, however, admit to being surprised that you aren't just
admitting that you're a puppet but that you're compalining about it.
Would you be interested in divulging whose messenger you are? Are
you staying at the Bilderberg Hotel? Meeting your contact in Times
Square? Snowboarding in the "Triangle Snow and Gossip Park"?
Oh, messenger boy - whose message are you carrying? Hm,m,m - is
there anything /else/ that you're carrying that you would feel
better about? Confession is good for the soul but, then, I'd imagine
your puppetmaster would punish you for spilling the pork & beans.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
President George W C Bush's business
professor at Harvard Business School,
Professor Yoshi Tsurumi, recalls our
President as "not just as a terrible
student but as spoiled, loutish and a
pathological liar".
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|Because I take a position opposite of yours? That's rich.
No Jeffy, here is why so many people treat you as they do:
****************************************************************************
. . . you're obviously stupid, and ignorant of how the courts
work, yet that doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off.
****************************************************************************
YOU DON'T KNOW WAHT YOU ARE TALKING ABOIT/ YOU MAKE IT UP AS YOU GO, YOU
DON'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK,. SEE BELOW
"Jeff Strickland" <spamc...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>:|But the Adams son was a child, or relative child, when the Adams father was
>:|Prez.
FACTS:
John Adams 1735-1826.
President 1797-1801
John Q. Adams 1767-1848
President 1825-1829
J.Q. Adams was approx 30 years old when his father was elected president.
That hardly makes him a child or relative child
One more time jeffy dazzles us with his ignorance
********************************************************************
YOU LIE:
Jeffy - I am "against" vouchers but I have offered every pro voucher
argument ever offered on the internet in voucher discussions for at least a
year to two years now - strickland
******************************************
YOU TROLL
Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
**********************************
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you are an idiot. I meant to just
come right out and say you are an idiot.
**************************************
Were you born this stupid or did you take a class?
**************************************
You don't mind that some of us consider you a pschopathetic liar, do you?
After all, you seem to create "facts" just like your spiritual
great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Richard "I'll Dick You" Cheney.
Are you so [drunk, stoned, Bushed, freaked out] that you even realize how
much - and how many - of your posts are lies?
Are you truly stupid or totally insane?
**************************************
[jeffy was asked]
Can you back this up with truthful citations or is this just more of your
"lies manufactured especially for any and all occasions by Jeffie
Strickland"?
**************************************
As you, Jeffie the Wack Strickland, are quite obviously the product of no
education whatsoever.
*********************************************************
Because you are clueless, seeing an objection when there is none, and
failing to understand the objection that I do have.
Aren't you again showing your cluelessness? Yes.
********************************************************
[Larry naidled jeff with]
So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a fool of myself
in public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??
Nah, you're just a rightard liar.
*********************************************************
Hugh Gibbons
"J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> True, but that fund is to protect the district from physical harm that might
> occur if a student gets hurt. The fund is not meant to fight to follow the
> state mandated education code.
He must show that a specific student is harmed, unless he was to get the
case certified as a class action. Which is unlikely. That means he
has to go after the schools in which those kids attend classes.
==> ALL COMMENTS IMO <==
The Bandit
revisit such lame lawsuits again by brain damaged liberal/atheists
because the Establishment Clause will be read exactly how it was read
by Jefferson/Madison and John Bingham, that is, a reserved right of the
States and the people and the federal courts have zero jurisdiction in
such matters.
Case closed.
DanielSan
Strange. See, I thought that was the Democrats (liberal/atheist)
position and I thought that it was the Republicans like Tom Delay,
George W. Bush and Bill Frist that tried to introduce legislation to
make it a federal case -- instead of a reserved right of the States and
the people -- so that the Federal courts WOULD have jurisdiction in such
matters.
I guess it the Gay Marriage Amendment was Teddy Kennedy's doing, all
along, with help from Hillary and Kerry, right?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
J Strickland
"Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote in message
news:party-6F66F0....@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...
I got it.
Newdow is going after four districts because he has clients with a student
in each of them. It seems a simple process to me that a judge could simply
stipulate that the districts are following State Education Code -- or law if
one prefers that term -- and releases them from the suit so they don't have
to expend resources in this area. The State can and should expend the
resources, but the schools should be shielded if that is possible. I think
it would be reasonable that a judge early on could simply stipulate that the
children involved do indeed attend schools in the cited districts, and move
on from there. If all he is doing by dragging the districts in is
establishing standing, then having the affected families enrolled in the
districts should do that, and then the case moves up a notch to go after the
education code, which is his real target anyhow.
I don't see him getting Class Action status either.
Personally, I think he will fail, or I hope he fails.
Brian Westley
>Touche.
That's because you never debate people as stupid as yourself.
Sorry, you're an ignorant fuck, so that's how I describe you.
>I pray that if I ever enter the court system, I don't get legal assistance
>from a man, or woman, with as limited a vocabulary as you seem to have.
It isn't limited, it's precise.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
You made up lies about Newdow
You made comments about him that weren't true
I even suggested to you in the past you were walking a very fine line with
your lies and comments that weren't true
Your forget all that
Beer and drug damage maybe?
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|"Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote in message
>:|news:party-6F66F0....@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...
>:|> In article <fuudnZLmHrD...@ez2.net>,
>:|> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>
>:|>> True, but that fund is to protect the district from physical harm that
>:|>> might
>:|>> occur if a student gets hurt. The fund is not meant to fight to follow
>:|>> the
>:|>> state mandated education code.
>:|>
>:|> He must show that a specific student is harmed, unless he was to get the
>:|> case certified as a class action. Which is unlikely. That means he
>:|> has to go after the schools in which those kids attend classes.
>:|>
>:|
>:|I got it.
>:|
>:|Newdow is going after four districts because he has clients with a student
>:|in each of them. It seems a simple process to me that a judge could simply
>:|stipulate that the districts are following State Education Code -- or law if
>:|one prefers that term -- and releases them from the suit so they don't have
>:|to expend resources in this area.
Poor jeffy
It is the students or students parents who are filing suit
The students attend different schools in different districts.
Newdow isn't "going after" anyone
For the sake of simple understanding for, you, we will say that these
various students/parents of students came to Newdow just as they would to
any other lawyer who has experience in a certain area they have a problem
with and asks that lawyer to take their case, to be their advocate (In the
earlier days of the last century it was called be their mouth piece)
To simplify the cases were combined into one since it was to be heard in
Federal court and all the schools in question were in the same federal
circuit.
Does that help you any dear jeffy?
Your lack of legal awareness I doubt anything will help u
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
Let me ask you a simple question:
Mike Newdow: graduate of Law School, U of Michigan. Filed suits and won in
the 9th Circuit. Filed suit to have Scalia recuse himself in the USSC
Pledge case and won. Filed suit to be able to argue his own case before the
USSC and won
Wowed everyone with his performance before that court
Jeffy Strickland: doesn't know a thing about law, the legal system, how
courts work, how to file a suit, etc
Who do you think would better know how to file a suit in federal court?
J Strickland
Yeah, "ignorant fuck" is precise. Idiot.
J Strickland
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:l5qke1dsn0budpjjj...@4ax.com...
Both of these are blatantly false. Everything I have ever said about Mr.
Newdow was gleemed from postings that were made here, or from news reports
that found their way here or to other places on the 'net. I haven't made
anything up. Somebody else might have made something up that I turned around
and repeated, that is certainly possible - however I don't think it's true.
But I have not been the source of false information ever.
Wait, you're right. I characterized the mother of his child as an ex-wife,
when the fact is he and she were never married, which makes her an
ex-girlfriend. Still an ex-, but a different degree of ex-. Forgive my
ignorance, but I don't think that is neither libel or slander, and it
certainly isn't harmful.
J Strickland
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ecqke1l0r6rlguht5...@4ax.com...
Forgive me, but Michael Newdow has an agenda. His clients came to him to
provide the standing he needed -- and which he lacked in his previous
effort -- after he failed in his own effort.
He has an agenda, and this is an attack. He most certainly is "going after."
That is precisely what he is doing. Whether or not the target of his "going
after" is sutiable is another matter, but there is no denying that he has an
agenda, and he is "going after" in the pursuit of his agenda.
"Poor Jeffy". That's rich!
I have a fine understanding of the law, I'm the one that told YOU that
Newdow had no standing, and it turns out I was right on that and you were
wrong. Poor Jimmy.
J Strickland
> Let me ask you a simple question:
>
> Mike Newdow: graduate of Law School, U of Michigan. Filed suits and won
> in
> the 9th Circuit. Filed suit to have Scalia recuse himself in the USSC
> Pledge case and won. Filed suit to be able to argue his own case before
> the
> USSC and won
> Wowed everyone with his performance before that court
>
> Jeffy Strickland: doesn't know a thing about law, the legal system, how
> courts work, how to file a suit, etc
>
> Who do you think would better know how to file a suit in federal court?
>
Let me give you a simple answer, the USSC shot down the 9th because Newdow
had no standing in the first place. HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE TIME
OF DAY FROM THE 9TH.
It is reasonable to point out that Newdow lost in several lower courts that
said the Pledge was fine. He just so happened to get a 3 judge panel that
consisted of three of the most liberal justices on the most liberal circuit
court in the land.
But, I am not arguing that Newdow is right or wrong. What I am arguing is
that it seems improper that he should have to sue the school districts as
separate entities because the districts are following state law, and if he
prevails in the case against the state, then the school districts will have
to change tiehr behavior anyway. The schools can not continue to have
children recite the Pledge in its current form if the state is told that it
can not have children recite the Pledge at all. If the state loses, then the
Education Code will be changed, and the schools will follow the new code.
Even if Newdow prevails against the school district, but loses against the
State, then the Education Code will remain the same, and the schools will
problably continue to follow the code.
So, going after the school districts is useless, except that it provides the
standing he needs. And if this is the reason for going after the districts,
then it's possible to stipulate that the children are enrolled in the
districts, and that the districts are merely following the Education Code,
and then let the districts out of the suit so they don't have to spend money
defending against something they are required to do.
Frankly, I hope Newdow loses now just because it will leave you eating crow,
and nothing would delight me more.
Brian Westley
Yes, for you, it is. You shoot your mouth off in complete ignorance.
Repeatedly. You're an "ignorant fuck".
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Hugh Gibbons
"J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote in message
> news:party-6F66F0....@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...
> > In article <fuudnZLmHrD...@ez2.net>,
> > "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> True, but that fund is to protect the district from physical harm that
> >> might
> >> occur if a student gets hurt. The fund is not meant to fight to follow
> >> the
> >> state mandated education code.
> >
> > He must show that a specific student is harmed, unless he was to get the
> > case certified as a class action. Which is unlikely. That means he
> > has to go after the schools in which those kids attend classes.
> >
>
> I got it.
>
> Newdow is going after four districts because he has clients with a student
> in each of them. It seems a simple process to me that a judge could simply
> stipulate that the districts are following State Education Code -- or law if
> one prefers that term -- and releases them from the suit so they don't have
> to expend resources in this area. The State can and should expend the
> resources, but the schools should be shielded if that is possible.
I don't see how it is possible. Newdow's suit alleges that they are
violating the Federally guaranteed rights of his clients. Even if the
State law says so, the schools are not allowed to break Federal laws
even if the State says they must. Thus they are, according to Newdow's
suit, liable.
> I think
> it would be reasonable that a judge early on could simply stipulate that the
> children involved do indeed attend schools in the cited districts, and move
> on from there. If all he is doing by dragging the districts in is
> establishing standing, then having the affected families enrolled in the
> districts should do that, and then the case moves up a notch to go after the
> education code, which is his real target anyhow.
No, it would be fine with Newdow if the schools looked at Federal law,
looked at State law and determined that they were bound by Federal
law which has precedence.
> I don't see him getting Class Action status either.
>
> Personally, I think he will fail, or I hope he fails.
I don't. I'd rather see people quit with the idolatry.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|> Let me ask you a simple question:
>:|>
>:|> Mike Newdow: graduate of Law School, U of Michigan. Filed suits and won
>:|> in
>:|> the 9th Circuit. Filed suit to have Scalia recuse himself in the USSC
>:|> Pledge case and won. Filed suit to be able to argue his own case before
>:|> the
>:|> USSC and won
>:|> Wowed everyone with his performance before that court
>:|>
>:|> Jeffy Strickland: doesn't know a thing about law, the legal system, how
>:|> courts work, how to file a suit, etc
>:|>
>:|> Who do you think would better know how to file a suit in federal court?
>:|>
>:|
>:|
>:|Let me give you a simple answer,
The simple valid and accurate answer is, Newdow knows how to file a law
suit. Jeff Strickland is clueless.
>:|the USSC shot down the 9th because Newdow
>:|had no standing in the first place.
False
The USSC didn't rule on the merits.
The USSC took the easy way out.
The USSC jumped into state law and they were incorrect on that point as has
been pointed out by a number of legal scholars
Ever hear of Federalism, something this USSC prides itself on upholding
except when they can appoint a right wing conservative President of the US
and rule against precedence in a Pledge case.
>:|HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE TIME
>:|OF DAY FROM THE 9TH.
False
>:|
>:|It is reasonable to point out that Newdow lost in several lower courts that
>:|said the Pledge was fine.
False
Several?
One court. stupid
What exactly did that court say, EXACTLY SAY?
>:|He just so happened to get a 3 judge panel that
>:|consisted of three of the most liberal justices on the most liberal circuit
>:|court in the land.
False
Which judges were liberal?
Not the one who wrote the opinion
Stupid f*cks up again
So far you are batting 1.000 wrong on every point
>:|But, I am not arguing
I am not interested in your clueless argument.
I am interested in helping you look like the fool you are.
"Jeff Strickland" <bee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" <bee...@yahoo.com> had written:
>:|> > Of the remaining 5, we don't know how they will go, but it is
safe to
>:|say
>:|> > that at least one of them will be inclined to go with the ceremony
>:|stand.
>:|"Andrew Spartz" <aspart...@pinenet.com> wrote in message
>:|> If one of the remaining five were so inclined, why didn't that
>:|> individual sign off with Renquist?
>:|> ARS
"Jeff Strickland" <bee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:|I can't answer that. There are any number of reasons, but for me to
>:|speculate is a waste of time and effort.
[buckeye]
That is all you do. Every post, every reply of yours is based on
gossip, rumor, speculation, guesses, things you make up and
unsubstantiated personal opinions
This is one thing that doesn't need a lot of speculation.
In the case of multi-judge courts, i.e. Courts of Appeals and Supreme
Courts (except NY, in NY the trial level court is called a supreme
court) judges/justices agree or disagree with regards to opinions.
If they disagree they dissent. If others dissent for the same
reasons, etc they join the one writing the dissenting opinion. If
they disagree for different reasons they write their own dissent.
Concur. To agree; accord; act together; consent. To agree with the
result reached by another, but not necessarily with the reasoning or
the logic used in reaching such a result. In the practice of appellate
courts, a "concurring opinion" is one filed by one of the judges or
justices, in which he agrees with the conclusions or the result of
another opinion filed in the case (which may be either the opinion of
the court or a dissenting opinion) though he states separately his
views of the case
Black's Law Dictionary 6th editiion, West Publishing, (1991) p 200
We ended up with a the opinion that Stevens wrote, in which four
others joined him. This became the majority opinion
We had three justices who did not agree with the position of the
majority but also did not agree among themselves.
Rehnquist's position
Chief Justice Rehnquist implausibly claims that nothing in the Pledge
is really religious.
Seven other justices did not agree with him
O'Connor's position
Justice O'Connor would hold that the Pledge is a permissible form of
`ceremonial deism,' recognizable as such because it is very brief,
recited by rote, avoids reference to any particular religion, and is
not worship or prayer.
Seven other justices did not agree with her
Thomas's position (Mr. Radical)
Justice Thomas would abolish all existing law under the Establishment
Clause.
Seven other justices did not agree with him
Steven's position,
He didn't have standing
Four other justices could agree with him.
As I have said before. It was a compromise position. They were not
going to agree to a 4- 4 split which would have left the ruling by the
9th Circuit stand, therefore, they wanted a majority of some kind.
However, no five justices, of the eight, would agree that the pledge
as it stands today was constitution, nor would five, of the eight,
agree it was unconstitutional.
Thus they settled with five agreeing he didn't have standing when in
fact, law and more judges and justices, along the way said he does
have standing.
The only speculation that might be involved would be why they were
afraid to do the right thing.
As law professor Douglas Laycock said, "For most Justices in the
majority, this result avoided a very difficult problem: it was
politically impossible to strike down the Pledge, and legally
impossible to uphold it."
[strickland]
>:|It doesn't matter that any one of
>:|the 5 might have signed on with Rehnquist,
[me]
It matters a great deal. it shows that none of the others agreed with
him. Being the uninformed person you are you didn't understand that.
[strickland]
>:|We know how Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas feel.
There is that "we" again.
Let me remind you. Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas vote as a block 98% of
the time with regards to church state issues. They vote the ultra
conservative party line, which interestingly enough is the old Joseph
Story, old NRA, accommodation, modern religious right position.
Once upon a time O'Connor and Kennedy were more moderate conservatives
and frequently together or separately (Sometimes they took turns. one
would join the other three and one wouldn't thus still depriving the
other three of the five votes they needed to make a majority)
Beginning a few years back after Scalia gave Kennedy a scathing tongue
lashing in a opinion, Kennedy has been dancing with the other three
exclusively on church state matters.
O'Connor still foiled the other three as much as she helped them, if
not more so until she was "cheated' out of her retirement in 2000 by
the backlash to the Bush v Gore joke.
Before Scalia made a fool of himself, Newdow was figuring he would
win by a 6-3 vote. he figured this because he felt that he could carry
O'Connor and Kennedy for the simple reason that Kennedy had written
the Lee opinion and he did not believe that Kennedy would go back on
his reasoning and conclusion in that ruling. he felt he could win
O'Connor because she created the endorsement test and things she said
in doing so was right in line with his own arguments At the worse if
either she or Kennedy broke it would be O'Connor who did so still
giving him a 5-4 win.
After Scalia did the right thing Newdow was counting on a 6-2 or at
worse 5-3 win
He was right in his math, but he didn't count on those five wimping
out O'Connor did break with her previous comments, or actually tried
to juggle them with now and not very well at that. Kennedy did hold to
his Lee ruling (however had the vote actually been between yea or nay
on constitutionality of the pledge, he might have broke and joined the
other three making a 4-4 split which they were determined not to have.
So, one just doesn't know 100% with him)
When it was announced that Stevens wrote the majority opinion it was
thought at once Newdow had won. Newdow would never in a million years
imagine that they would wimp out like that and to do so using the
standing card. That was a double insult since anyone and everyone knew
the standing was a settled issue. He did have standing.
Hell, even the majority of the journalists and lawyers in the
courtroom that March 24th later wrote or said they felt he had won the
standing argument, that it was put to rest finally once and for all.
[strickland]
:|We know how Scalia feels.
>:|So, there are four that would allow the Pledge to remain as it is,
albeit
>:|for 4 different reasons.
[me]
Four different reasons don't form a majority thus do not change or
make law.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|> Let me ask you a simple question:
>:|>
>:|> Mike Newdow: graduate of Law School, U of Michigan. Filed suits and won
>:|> in
>:|> the 9th Circuit. Filed suit to have Scalia recuse himself in the USSC
>:|> Pledge case and won. Filed suit to be able to argue his own case before
>:|> the
>:|> USSC and won
>:|> Wowed everyone with his performance before that court
>:|>
>:|> Jeffy Strickland: doesn't know a thing about law, the legal system, how
>:|> courts work, how to file a suit, etc
>:|>
>:|> Who do you think would better know how to file a suit in federal court?
>:|>
>:|
>:|
>:|Let me give you a simple answer,
The simple valid and accurate answer is, Newdow knows how to file a law
suit. Jeff Strickland is clueless.
>:|the USSC shot down the 9th because Newdow
>:|had no standing in the first place.
False
The USSC didn't rule on the merits.
The USSC took the easy way out.
The USSC jumped into state law and they were incorrect on that point as has
been pointed out by a number of legal scholars
Ever hear of Federalism, something this USSC prides itself on upholding
except when they can appoint a right wing conservative President of the US
and rule against precedence in a Pledge case.
>:|HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE TIME
>:|OF DAY FROM THE 9TH.
False
>:|
>:|It is reasonable to point out that Newdow lost in several lower courts that
>:|said the Pledge was fine.
False
Several?
One court. stupid
What exactly did that court say, EXACTLY SAY?
>:|He just so happened to get a 3 judge panel that
>:|consisted of three of the most liberal justices on the most liberal circuit
>:|court in the land.
False
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
I bet all lawyers have agendas, even if its just to make a living
So what?
Very lame jeffey , very lame
>:|His clients came to him to
>:|provide the standing he needed -- and which he lacked in his previous
>:|effort -- after he failed in his own effort.
Careful jeffy. You are pretending to know things you don't know.
Remember Newdow files libel suits
Libel /laybal/. A method of defamation expressed by print, writing,
pictures, or signs. In its most general sense, any publication that is
injurious to the reputation of another. A false and unprivileged
publication in writing of defamatory material. A maliciously written or
printed publication which tends to blacken a person's reputation or to
expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his
business or profession.
Accusation in writing or printing against the character of a person which
affects his reputation, in that it tends to hold him up to ridicule,
contempt, shame, disgrace, or obloquy, to degrade him in the estimation of
the community, to induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of rightthink-
ing persons, to make him an object of reproach, to diminish his
respectability or abridge his comforts, to change his position in society
for the worse, to dishonor or discredit him in the estimation of the
public, or his friends and acquaintances, or to deprive him of friendly
intercourse in society, or cause him to be shunned or avoided, or
where it is charged that one has violated his public duty as a public
officer. Almost any lan-guage which upon its face has a natural tendency
to injure a man's reputation, either generally or with respect to his
occupation.
BLACK'SLAW DICTIONAY
>:|
>:|He has an agenda, and this is an attack. He most certainly is "going after."
>:|That is precisely what he is doing. Whether or not the target of his "going
>:|after" is sutiable is another matter, but there is no denying that he has an
>:|agenda, and he is "going after" in the pursuit of his agenda.
Ho hum
>:|
>:|"Poor Jeffy". That's rich!
No it's poor referring to you and your lack of knowledge about the things
you post about
>:|I have a fine understanding of the law,
You delude yourself
You seem quite ignorant of libel laws but you might be getting a up close
and personal education about them.
>:| the one that told YOU that
>:|Newdow had no standing,
Problem with that, based on California laws, you weren't and aren't
correct.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20040109.html
In my view (and the view of a recent amicus brief in the Newdow case), it
is the California courts who should answer this question. The Supreme Court
should ask them --- as it has the right to do -- to clarify what, if any,
Mr. Newdow's family law rights are with respect to the religious upbringing
of his daughter. Otherwise, the Court may rule based on a misunderstanding
of California law in a highly-charged Establishment Clause setting that
should be approached only with caution.
Vikram David Amar is a professor of law at the University of California,
Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale
Law School, and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author
of the Cohen and Varat constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of
several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and
procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
****************************************************************************************
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/18/hamilton.pledge/
State family law issues
The majority's opinion in Newdow was written by Justice Stevens, and joined
by Justices Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Its holding that Newdow
lacked standing was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the
relevant state's -- California's -- family law. Specifically, given the
California law custody situation with respect to Newdow's daughter, the
Court held that Newdow did not have standing to assert his daughter's right
(if there was one) to challenge the "under God" pledge.
If this kind of holding -- about who has custody -- sounds to you like it
should be coming from a family court, not the U.S. Supreme Court, you're
absolutely right.
Because the majority's opinion intruded into a subject that is
intrinsically the province of the states -- and state courts -- it is very
troubling from a federalism perspective. It is well established that state
courts have the last word on the interpretation of state law issues and
doctrines. But here, the U.S. Supreme Court took it upon itself to be the
final arbiter of the meaning of state law.
The federal courts, and in fact the federal government, simply do not deal
with custody issues except in the rarest circumstances. The majority's
decision was nothing short of hubris when it decided to reach out to
determine what Newdow's rights are with respect to the religious education
of his daughter. The folly of this decision could be felt in custody
disputes around the nation.
The majority's failure
Even worse, the Court chose this option in a situation where the Circuit
situated in that state -- California's U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit -- had already ruled that the state law permitted a father in
Newdow's circumstances to assert standing.
In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist rightly takes the
majority to task for reversing the Ninth Circuit's reading of state law. In
general, federal courts defer to the highest court of the state's
interpretation of state law, and the Supreme Court defers to the Circuit's
reading of the state law in the state where the Circuit sits.
The Supreme Court is simply too far removed from the state to take on the
responsibility of divining the state's law. In contrast, the relevant
federal appeals court will have the experience of dealing frequently with
state law issues of the state in which it sits.
(State law issues do come up frequently in the lower federal courts.
Indeed, so-called "diversity" jurisdiction allows a purely state law case
to be adjudicated in federal court if the monetary stakes are high enough,
and the parties are from different states. Also, a federal case can be
tried in federal court even if the plaintiff also alleges state law causes
of action. For all these reasons, federal courts do end up seeing a lot of
state law issues -- and typically, they apply the law of the state in which
they sit to decide these issues. So the Ninth Circuit is constantly seeing
California law issues come before it.
When the Supreme Court takes a case, it usually takes only those cases
involving splits in authority between states or the federal courts on
federal issues, so the likelihood that the Court will decide a state law
issue is small. Indeed, it is not unusual for the Court to remand a case
for a clearer determination by the court below regarding the meaning of the
state law. For the Supreme Court, California is just one of fifty states
whose state law issues rarely arise.)
Marci A. Hamilton, a FindLawexternal link columnist, is the Paul R. Verkuil
chairwoman in public law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva
University.
*****************************************************************************************
You newest argument now shows how clueless you are of law, etc.
but you are so clueless you don't even know you are clueless. That is a
riot.
J Strickland
But reciting the Pledge is not a mandatory activity, the clients can opt out
of the daily exercise if they want to. Even Newdow's own daughter could opt
out, but he was not satisfied with that because she was still exposed to the
word, God coming from the other children.
And Federal Law permits the recital of the Pledge, indeed it compels -- or
nearly compels -- the recital. State Education Code is attempting to follow
Federal Law in this regard.
>> I think
>> it would be reasonable that a judge early on could simply stipulate that
>> the
>> children involved do indeed attend schools in the cited districts, and
>> move
>> on from there. If all he is doing by dragging the districts in is
>> establishing standing, then having the affected families enrolled in the
>> districts should do that, and then the case moves up a notch to go after
>> the
>> education code, which is his real target anyhow.
>
> No, it would be fine with Newdow if the schools looked at Federal law,
> looked at State law and determined that they were bound by Federal
> law which has precedence.
>
No, I don't think that would satisfy Newdow at all because Federal Law
permits the recital of the Pledge. That is the crux of the matter, he wants
to exert a law that simply doesn't exist in the manner in which he wants to
apply it. That is, while the "Establishment Clause" clearly prohibits
Federal establishemnt of religion, most people do not think that there is a
violation of that principle happening in the Pledge.
>> I don't see him getting Class Action status either.
>>
>> Personally, I think he will fail, or I hope he fails.
>
> I don't. I'd rather see people quit with the idolatry.
Perhaps yo might want to see people quit the idolatry, would you want to see
Federal Law prohibit the idolatry?
If people want to walk away from the idolatry, that's fine. But when most of
the population actually embraces the idolatry, then the rest of the people
might be exposed to the idol lunacy from time to time, but they are free to
keep walking away ...
J Strickland
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:mrese19qs3650i355...@4ax.com...
> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>:|
>>:|> Let me ask you a simple question:
>>:|>
>>:|> Mike Newdow: graduate of Law School, U of Michigan. Filed suits and
>>won
>>:|> in
>>:|> the 9th Circuit. Filed suit to have Scalia recuse himself in the USSC
>>:|> Pledge case and won. Filed suit to be able to argue his own case
>>before
>>:|> the
>>:|> USSC and won
>>:|> Wowed everyone with his performance before that court
>>:|>
>>:|> Jeffy Strickland: doesn't know a thing about law, the legal system,
>>how
>>:|> courts work, how to file a suit, etc
>>:|>
>>:|> Who do you think would better know how to file a suit in federal
>>court?
>>:|>
>>:|
>>:|
>>:|Let me give you a simple answer,
>
> The simple valid and accurate answer is, Newdow knows how to file a law
> suit. Jeff Strickland is clueless.
>
>
>>:|the USSC shot down the 9th because Newdow
>>:|had no standing in the first place.
>
> False
>
> The USSC didn't rule on the merits.
That's correct, it ruled that Newdcow should never have gotten as far as he
did. The 9th should have turned him down. The US District court should have
turned him down. The local Superior court should have turned him down.
> The USSC took the easy way out.
> The USSC jumped into state law and they were incorrect on that point as
> has
> been pointed out by a number of legal scholars
>
> Ever hear of Federalism, something this USSC prides itself on upholding
> except when they can appoint a right wing conservative President of the US
> and rule against precedence in a Pledge case.
>
>>:|HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE TIME
>>:|OF DAY FROM THE 9TH.
>
> False
>
>>:|
>>:|It is reasonable to point out that Newdow lost in several lower courts
>>that
>>:|said the Pledge was fine.
>
> False
> Several?
> One court. stupid
>
Newdow started out in the US District court? I thought that was his first
appeal.
> What exactly did that court say, EXACTLY SAY?
>
Which court, the USSC? It said that Newdow had no standing to bring the
suit.
>>:|He just so happened to get a 3 judge panel that
>>:|consisted of three of the most liberal justices on the most liberal
>>circuit
>>:|court in the land.
>
> False
>
False? How can you say that? Everybody said that the three judge panel
consisted of the most liberal of the judges on the court. And, every court
watcher in the land cites the 9th as the most liberal court in the country.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|news:d7hfe1l2ek0n9vl60...@4ax.com...
>:|> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|I am not sure what the affect of the KCs will be, but I think
>:|>
>:|> It's been shown time and time again you don't think.
>:|>
>:|>>:|the decision
>:|>>:|will be that there is no "establishing" going on, and the Pledge will
>:|>>stand.
>:|>
>:|> What do you base this on?
>:|>
>:|
>:|Just my gut feeling. There is no "establishing", that is clear to me. But, I
>:|am not the judge that will rule, so what is clear to me doesn't really
>:|matter.
BINGO DUDE
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Jim, have you been in jail or something? I haven't seen you in a very long
>:|time.
You see me quite often, you just don't seem to know it
>:|> **************************************************************
>:|> You are invited to check out the following:
>:|>
>:|> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
>:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>:|>
>:|> [and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
>:|>
>:|> HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
>:|> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
>:|>
>:|> [Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
>:|>
>:|> For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
>:|>
>:|> NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
>:|> http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
>:|>
>:|> Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
>:|> http://au-va.org/
>:|>
>:|> ***************************************************************
>:|>
>:|> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
>:|> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
>:|> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
>:|> "a
>:|> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
>:|> Eisner,
>:|> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
>:|> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
>:|> . . .
>:|>
>:|> ****************************************************************
>:|>
>:|> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
>:|> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>:|>
>:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>:|>
>:|> "Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
>:|>
>:|> Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
>:|> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
>:|> and
>:|> Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
>:|> Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
>:|>
>:|> This site is a member of the following web rings:
>:|>
>:|> Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
>:|>
>:|> The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
>:|>
>:|> American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
>:|>
>:|> Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
>:|>
>:|> Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
>:|>
>:|> ****************************************************************
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|"Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote in message
>:|news:party-26360B....@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com...
>:|
Jeffy - I don't know sh8t about law - strickland messes up AGAIN
Ever hear of this before
http://66.34.103.193/ufc/Other/Gov-Religion/Pledge.htm
1943: The Supreme Court rules that students can not be forced to recite
the pledge. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
For more from that same site
A Quick History
The original pledge of allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a
Baptist Minister and Christian Socialist. Its intent was to commemorate the
400 year anniversary of Columbus' discovery of the New World.
The original Pledge read as follows:
'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'
1923-24: the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution
decided to change the words 'my Flag' to 'the Flag of the United States of
America'.
1942: Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance and required
its recital in schools.
1943: The Supreme Court rules that students can not be forced to recite the
pledge. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
1954: under pressure from Christian fundamentalists, including the Knights
of Columbus, a Catholic group, a bill was introduced into Congress by
Congressman Louis C. Rabaut from Michigan, adding the words 'under God' to
the pledge between 'one nation' and 'indivisible'. It was subsequently
passed by both houses of Congress.
June 14th, 1954: The modified pledge is signed into law by Eisenhower
The modified Pledge would read as follows:
'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the
Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all'
On June 30th, 2002, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which
serves the Western States including California, Oregon, Washington,
Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern
Mariana Islands, ruled that the school-led recital of the pledge with the
words 'under God' in it was unconstitutional violation of the separation of
church and state. Read the full 9th Circuit court ruling here (requires
Adobe Acrobat Reader)
Constitutional Perspectives
The following are opinions, written by the UFC Staff
The first amendment to the US Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Most constitutional scholars have voiced agreement with the 9th
Circuit court ruling, noting that is was based on thorough analysis of
previous Supreme Court cases regarding similar issues, such as student led
prayer at football games (Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe).
Immediately after the ruling was announced, public outcry was overwhelming
and almost unanimous dismay at the courts decision. Within hours, the
Senate had passed a resolution 99-0 condemning the resolution. In the words
of Senator Robert Byrd (D- West Virginia), "I hope the Senate will waste no
time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge. Stupid, that's
what he is."
But the problem lies not with the 3 judges who heard this case, but
with the man who brought the suit. Yes, the words 'under God' are clearly
unconstitutional when forced to be recited in public schools. Yes, the
ruling by the 9th Circuit Court is constitutionally solid. Yes, Congress
broke the law when they modified the pledge back in 1954. The first
amendment prohibits Congress from making a law "respecting an establishment
of religion". Now, the words 'under God' do not "respect" and specific
religion, but they do "respect" religion in general, in this case affirming
that God exists. This may seem fine to all believers in a Supreme Being,
after all "God" could be any religion's deity, however this view neglects
the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of non-believers in the
country who have no belief in God. Are they to be ignored in favor of the
wishes of the majority? Of course not. 'Under God' is unconstitutional,
however a court should have reached this conclusion back in 1954, not 2002.
Why did they not? Given the political and social atmosphere of the 50's
with the very real threat of war with the Soviet Union and the very public
nationwide "witch hunt" for U.S. communists, it's no wonder no citizen
dared to challenge the law, and thus no court could rule on it.
Over time, the constant recital of the pledge has lessened it's impact
through repetition, diluting it to the point where there is arguably very
little direct religious connotation now (much like 'In God We Trust'
printed on American currency). Speaking from experience, I can say it's
barely noticed by most students today, after repeating it almost every day
of their lives for up to 12 years.
So why the tremendous outcry? With the events of 9/11, patriotism runs
high in America, and many people associate the ruling with an attack on an
American tradition at a time when the country must remain unified to
survive. The blame in this case, however, rests not with the court but with
the plaintiff. The lawsuit was well meaning, well founded, but 48 years too
late.
The Courts and the Pledge
Minersville v. Gobitis - 1940
Schools can force students to recite the pledge, even if it conflicts with
their religious views
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette - 1943
Overturns Minersville v. Gobitis, stating that no student can be required
ti recite the pledge if it violates their religious or personal views.
Newdow v. US Congress - 2002 - Read the ruling here
9th Circuit Court ruling declaring the Pledge of Allegiance
unconstitutional in its current form.
Sources
Baer, Dr. John W. The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History
http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm
Francis Bellamy
http://www.ncteamericancollection.org/litmap/bellamy_francis_ny.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpoiani/knights/pledge.htm
The Constitution of the United States of America
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
Freedom of Religion, An overall view of religious liberty as defined
by U.S. Supreme Court cases
http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.html
>:|
>:|
>:|
>:|>> I think
>:|
>:|
>:|
>:|
J Strickland
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:t7gve1513vjd7mikn...@4ax.com...
As a matter of fact, I managed to predict the ruling of the USSC relative to
the Pledge better than you. I said precisely that the USSC would not rule
and effectively send Newdow down in flames because he didn't have standing.
This is where we are today.
My next prediction is that the 9th will rule again in the same way (I'd be
shocked if they ruled any differently, but I still maintain they ruled
incorrectly based on the Constitution) and the USSC will then have to rule
that the government's mere recognition of religion as a principle concept in
the human existance is not an endorsement, and much less an establishment
that runs afoul of the 1st Amendment.
The USSC has already said that the National Motto is fine and does not
violate the Constitution, the Pledge will be ruled the same. The Cross on
the seal of the County of Los Angeles would likely be ruled the same if the
county hadn't caved into the ACLU.
J Strickland
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:7ghve1dhkbrf43tto...@4ax.com...
Of course I know that, that's why I said that the children can opt out.
Newdow's own child could opt out, but he wasn't happy with that because she
would still be exposed to "God" coming from the other children.
Without giving an exact quote, the Feds can and do ask that every child
recite the Pledge. Kids that do not specifically opt out stand at attention,
hand over their heart, and recite daily the Pledge of Allegiance. Those that
opt out do whatever the local custom is, I assume they would either remain
seated, or just stand quietly for a few moments while the other children
engaged in the exercise. I suppose they could stand at the back of the
class, but where they stand really isn't an issue to me, I'll accept pretty
much what the principle says they must do, short of stand on their head and
spit wooden nickles.
> For more from that same site
>
>
>
>
> A Quick History
>
>
Old history that everybody knows.
Mr. Bobo
If the 1st Amendment provides significant protection, rather than just
nice sounding words, the Establishment Clause prohibits de facto
establishments, not just de jure establishments. No one has standing to file
a lawsuit challenging the cumulative effect of a gaggle of laws, so
preventing a de facto establishment of religion requires that courts strike
down laws that take major steps in that direction. Newdow was challenging an
act of Congress that inserted an endorsement of religion into the pledge
with the clear understanding that immigrants would face pressure to say it
when becoming citizens, and with the clear understanding that schools would
encourage (and, as a practical matter in some cases, require) people to say
it.
Newdow's the strict constructionist.
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:mrese19qs3650i355...@4ax.com...
The ruling was correct as a matter of law.
Rehnquist and Thomas were the activists in this case.
> Seven other justices did not agree with him
>
> O'Connor's position
> Justice O'Connor would hold that the Pledge is a permissible form of
> `ceremonial deism,' recognizable as such because it is very brief,
> recited by rote, avoids reference to any particular religion, and is
> not worship or prayer.'
"Ceremonial deism" is a good substitute for the oxymoronic phrase
"secular deism" the Supreme Court also used in 1970 to uphold "In God We
Trust."
> his reashoning and conclusion in that ruling. he felt he could win
> O'Connor because she created the endorsement test and things she said
> in doing so was right in line with his own arguments At the worse if
> either she or Kennedy broke it would be O'Connor who did so still
> giving im a 5-4 win.
Bob LeChevalier
>My next prediction is that the 9th will rule again in the same way (I'd be
>shocked if they ruled any differently, but I still maintain they ruled
>incorrectly based on the Constitution) and the USSC will then have to rule
>that the government's mere recognition of religion as a principle concept in
>the human existance is not an endorsement
The Pledge does not merely recognize religion as a principle concept,
it recognizes a specific religion (one which thinks that the nation is
"under God", which not all religions believe). And since the law
requires the Pledge to be taught to kids, it isn't mere recognition,
but requiring the teaching of said religious belief.
>The USSC has already said that the National Motto is fine and does not
>violate the Constitution,
An erroneous decision, based on the claim that it had only a
ceremonial significance and didn't actually *mean* anything. The fact
that fundies are so adamant against its removal BECAUSE of the
religious aspect shows that to be a lie. But it remains the law
until/unless the court decides to revisit the issue, based on evidence
of that religious significance.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
bucke...@nospam.net
>:| "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
>:| If the 1st Amendment provides significant protection, rather than just
>:|nice sounding words, the Establishment Clause prohibits de facto
>:|establishments, not just de jure establishments. No one has standing to file
>:|a lawsuit challenging the cumulative effect of a gaggle of laws, so
>:|preventing a de facto establishment of religion requires that courts strike
>:|down laws that take major steps in that direction. Newdow was challenging an
>:|act of Congress that inserted an endorsement of religion into the pledge
>:|with the clear understanding that immigrants would face pressure to say it
>:|when becoming citizens, and with the clear understanding that schools would
>:|encourage (and, as a practical matter in some cases, require) people to say
>:|it.
>:| Newdow's the strict constructionist.
I would agree with that
>:| The ruling was correct as a matter of law.
Some pretty heavy weight legal scholars disagree with you
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
And Jeffy is wrong again and still incorrect even after he has been shown
he is incorrect:
"J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|But reciting the Pledge is not a mandatory activity, the clients can opt out
>:|of the daily exercise if they want to. Even Newdow's own daughter could opt
>:|out, but he was not satisfied with that because she was still exposed to the
>:|word, God coming from the other children.
>:|
>:|And Federal Law permits the recital of the Pledge, indeed it compels -- or
>:|nearly compels -- the recital. State Education Code is attempting to follow
>:|Federal Law in this regard.
>:|
Jeffy - I don't know shitt about law - strickland messes up AGAIN
Ever hear of this before
http://66.34.103.193/ufc/Other/Gov-Religion/Pledge.htm
1943: The Supreme Court rules that students can not be forced to recite
the pledge. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
Jeffy shows his ignorance again.
For more from that same site
A Quick History
The original pledge of allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a
Baptist Minister and Christian Socialist. Its intent was to commemorate the
400 year anniversary of Columbus' discovery of the New World.
The original Pledge read as follows:
'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'
1923-24: the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution
decided to change the words 'my Flag' to 'the Flag of the United States of
America'.
1942: Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance and required
its recital in schools.
1943: The Supreme Court rules that students can not be forced to recite the
pledge. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
1954: under pressure from Christian fundamentalists, including the Knights
Constitutional Perspectives
to recite the pledge if it violates their religious or personal views.
Newdow v. US Congress - 2002 - Read the ruling here
9th Circuit Court ruling declaring the Pledge of Allegiance
unconstitutional in its current form.
Sources
Baer, Dr. John W. The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History
http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm
Francis Bellamy
http://www.ncteamericancollection.org/litmap/bellamy_francis_ny.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpoiani/knights/pledge.htm
The Constitution of the United States of America
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
Freedom of Religion, An overall view of religious liberty as defined
by U.S. Supreme Court cases
http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.html
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|news:t7gve1513vjd7mikn...@4ax.com...
>:|> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|>>:|news:d7hfe1l2ek0n9vl60...@4ax.com...
>:|>>:|> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|>>:|I am not sure what the affect of the KCs will be, but I think
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|> It's been shown time and time again you don't think.
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|>>:|the decision
>:|>>:|>>:|will be that there is no "establishing" going on, and the Pledge
>:|>>will
>:|>>:|>>stand.
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|> What do you base this on?
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|Just my gut feeling. There is no "establishing", that is clear to me.
>:|>>But, I
>:|>>:|am not the judge that will rule, so what is clear to me doesn't really
>:|>>:|matter.
>:|>
>:|> BINGO DUDE
>:|>
>:|>
>:|
>:|As a matter of fact, I managed to predict the ruling of the USSC relative to
>:|the Pledge better than you.
Actually Jeffy, place a monkey in front of two buttons, ask the monkey a
series of questions and that monkey will hit the button that corresponds
to some sort of answer to some of those questions.
That is all you are doing jeffy.
Your law of law, courts, the legal profession, history etc, in short your
grasp of details and facts is zilch,
Any moron, without a speck of knowledge, in this day and age, with the
USSC as political and out of touch with the makeup of this nation as it is,
can guess what they probably will do on certain issues and be correct a
fair percentage of the time.
The problem is both you and the USSC were INCORRECT.
However, you fail to grasp that as well.
>:|I said precisely that the USSC would not rule
>:|and effectively send Newdow down in flames because he didn't have standing.
>:|This is where we are today.
We have done the standing issue so many times it isn't funny, in fact, it
is downright sad how you prove over and over again that your mind is so
closed, that you are incapable of learning beyond your biases and
prejudices.
>:|My next prediction is that the 9th will rule again in the same way (I'd be
>:|shocked if they ruled any differently,
Hehehehe, it will be different judges Jeffy, they could very well rule
against Newdow.
Doesn't matter. it will be appealed anyways
>:|but I still maintain they ruled
>:|incorrectly based on the Constitution) and the USSC
you write this above,
>:|>>But, I
>:|>>:|am not the judge that will rule, so what is clear to me doesn't really
>:|>>:|matter.
Try memorizing it and understanding
Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion stated that based on law the
Pledge was unconstitutional.
The 9th said the same thing twice.
Most respected legal and historical scholars say it is unconstitutional
Your opinions are based on you prejudices, your biases your religious right
brainwashing, not on any knowledge of history or law
http://66.34.103.193/ufc/Other/Gov-Religion/Pledge.htm
Constitutional Perspectives
Freedom of Religion, An overall view of religious liberty as defined
by U.S. Supreme Court cases
http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.html
[snip]
>:|
>:|The USSC has already said that the National Motto is fine and does not
>:|violate the Constitution,
Would you cite that case and that ruling?
>the Pledge will be ruled the same. The Cross on
>:|the seal of the County of Los Angeles would likely be ruled the same if the
>:|county hadn't caved into the ACLU.
You still got that one wrong too Jeffy
You been corrected before about this but you are too dumb to understand
it was the ADL not the ACLU dummy
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
Why, because you say so?
>:|The local Superior court should have turned him down.
Local Superior Court?
How did it get in the act?
Do you even know the history of this case? It doesn't appear as if you do.
>:|> The USSC took the easy way out.
>:|> The USSC jumped into state law and they were incorrect on that point as
>:|> has
>:|> been pointed out by a number of legal scholars
>:|>
>:|> Ever hear of Federalism, something this USSC prides itself on upholding
>:|> except when they can appoint a right wing conservative President of the US
>:|> and rule against precedence in a Pledge case.
>:|>
>:|>>:|HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE TIME
>:|>>:|OF DAY FROM THE 9TH.
>:|>
>:|> False
>:|>
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|It is reasonable to point out that Newdow lost in several lower courts
>:|>>that
>:|>>:|said the Pledge was fine.
>:|>
>:|> False
>:|> Several?
>:|> One court. stupid
>:|>
>:|
>:|Newdow started out in the US District court?
Yes he did. We went through this before.
You were stating the District Court ruled such and such was false.
They dismissed the case
THE FACTS:
YOU SAY:
Jeff Strickland Jun 28 2004, 1:42 pm
Newsgroups: alt.education, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.christian.religion.presbyterian
From: "Jeff Strickland" <beer...@yahoo.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:42:59 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 28 2004 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: A great Pledge article
Pardon me for top posting.
Jim fails to accept that the US District Court held that Newdow had no
Standing, and the USSC upheld that position contrary to what the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals has to say.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1682/
"The district court dismissed Newdow's complaint for lack of standing,
because he and the mother of his daughter are divorced and he does not have
custody. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that
Newdow did have standing "to challenge a practice that interferes with his
right to direct the religious education of his daughter." The Ninth Circuit
ruled that Congress's 1954 act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge
and the school district policy requiring it be recited both violated the
First Amendment's establishment clause."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/0c29d906ad74e504?hl=en&
***********************************************************************************************************
I PRESENT:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/8022d77c4e77e2b0?hl=en&
[excerpt]
[strickland had said]
>:|Technically, I suppose not. BUT the US District Court did cite Standing as a
>:|reason to rule against Newdow.
[i asked]
Would you mind quoting the wording this district court is suppose to have
used when it dismissed the case on the basis of standing?
What I read of the actual opinion makes it a bit unclear.
For instance:
Defendant schools district move to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12
(b)(6) for a failure to state a claim.
[Newdow addressed that in his brief in response the dismissal. ]
and
------------------------------------------------------
Then you will see where the judge talks about several prior cases and
finally finishes up with:
The 7th Circuit's decision in Sherman and the statements in dicta above,
while not binding on this court are persuasive and directly on point. Were
the court to employ the test set forth in Lemon or the more recent
endorsement test the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause of
the 1st Amendment, Accordingly I recommend plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the judge did not come right out and say he dismissed the case on the
grounds of failure to state a claim. he might have, but he sure didn't
actually say that. Looks like he did some him hawing around.
One could just as easily assume and somewhat correctly, that he dismissed
the case because in his opinion the matter was already settled as a result
of dicta (which isn't law) and the ruling in Sherman.
What we actually have is round one of let me make damn certain I am not the
judge who takes God out of the Pledge. See below:
----------------------
DO NOT IGNORE THESE COMMENTS EITHER BY NEWDOW:
During the May 15, 2000 hearing, Plaintiff remarked to Judge Nowinski that
he understood that no judge wants to be responsible for taking God out of
the Pledge of Allegiance. Judge Nowinski responded:
What you last said couldn't be more accurate. In this day and age no one
wants to take that step. I don't think anybody's going to.
He thus made it clear what his recommendation was to be, and that he would
use whatever means he could find to uphold Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In re Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED
[5] "The general rule in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint for
failure to state a claim is that a complaint should not be dismissed
'***unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' CONLEY
VS. GIBSON (1957), 355 U.S. 41, 45, 46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2LEd 2d 80;
SEYMOUR VS. UNION NEWS COMPANY, 7 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 168; and see rule
54c, demand for judgment, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 28 USCA:
"***every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose
favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such
relief in his pleadings." U.S. V. WHITE COUNTY BRIDGE COMMISSION (1960), 2
Fr Serv 2d 107, 275 F2d 529, 535
"A complaint may not be dismissed on motion if it states some sort of
claim, baseless though it may eventually prove to be, and inartistically as
the complaint may be drawn. Therefore, under our rules, the plaintiff's
allegations that he is suing in 'criminal libel' should not be literally
construed. [3] The complaint is hard to understand but this, with nothing
more, should not bring about a dismisal of the complaint, particularly is
this true where a defendant is not represented by counsel, and in view of
rule 8{f} of the rules of civil procedure, 28 U.S.C., which requires that
all pleadings shall be construed as to do substantial justice BURT VS. CITY
OF NEW YORK, 2Cir., (1946) 156 F.2d 791. Accordingly, the complaint will
not be dismissed for insufficiency. [4,5] Since the Federal Courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction, a plaintiff must always show in his
complaint the grounds upon which that jurisdiction depends." STEIN VS.
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA, DCCDJ
(1950), 11 F.R.D. 153.
"A complaint will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, even
though inartistically drawn and lacking in allegations of essential facts,
it cannot be said that under no circumstances will the party be able to
recover." JOHN EDWARD CROCKARD VS. PUBLISHERS, SATURDAY EVENING POST
MAGAZINE OF PHILADELPHIA, PA (1956) Fr Serv 29, 19 F.R.D. 511, DCED Pa 19
(1958)
"FRCP 8f: CONSTRUCTION OF pleadings. All pleadings shall be so construed as
to do substantial justice." DIOGUARDI VS. DURNING, 2 CIR., (1944) 139 F2d
774
"Counterclaims will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, even
though inartistically drawn and lacking in allegations of essential facts,
it cannot be said that under no circumstances will the party be able to
recover." LYNN VS VALENTINE VS. LEVY, 23 Fr 46, 19 FDR, DSCDNY (1956)
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, suit cannot be dismissed because of errors in
service
====================================================
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW.
A district court's order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim is reviewed de novo. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d
1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 1998)
OPINION
GOODWIN, Circuit Judge:
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[excerpt]
Newdow's complaint in the district court challenged the constitutionality,
under the First Amendment, of the 1954 Act, the California statute, and the
school district's policy requiring teachers to lead willing students in
recitation of the Pledge. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, but
did not seek damages.
The school districts and their superintendents (collectively, "school
district defendants") filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Magistrate Judge Peter A.
Nowinski held a hearing at which the school district defendants requested
that the court rule only on the constitutionality of the Pledge, and defer
any ruling on sovereign immunity. The United States Congress, the United
States, and the President of the United States (collectively, "the federal
defendants") joined in the motion to dismiss filed by the school district
defendants. The magistrate judge reported findings and a recommendation;
District Judge Edward J. Schwartz approved the recommendation and entered a
judgment of dismissal. This appeal followed.
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/religious/details.cfm?id=9 289
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice the above.
Now notice this:
The school districts and their superintendents filed a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. .
. . The magistrate judge reported findings and a recommendation; District
Judge Edward J. Schwartz approved the recommendation and entered a judgment
of dismissal. This appeal followed.
http://www2.bc.edu/~garvey/religion/Newdow1.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Two different web sites. One gives far more information while the other
gives an abbreviated form.
Does it matter? Yes it does, quite a bit.
It creates confusion and can create a misunderstanding.
The schools representatives asked for a dismissal on the grounds of failure
to state a case, but then altered that and asked that the court rule on the
actual merits of the case. (see both examples above)
The wording of the District court's opinion only says he is dismissing the
case and that is immediately after a discussion on USSC dicta and a
previous ruling in Sherman.
THIS IS THE COMPLETE VERSION:
The school districts and their superintendents (collectively, "school
district defendants") filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Magistrate Judge Peter A.
Nowinski held a hearing at which the school district defendants requested
that the court rule only on the constitutionality of the Pledge, and defer
any ruling on sovereign immunity. The United States Congress, the United
States, and the President of the United States (collectively, "the federal
defendants") joined in the motion to dismiss filed by the school district
defendants. The magistrate judge reported findings and a recommendation;
District Judge Edward J. Schwartz approved the recommendation and entered a
judgment of dismissal. This appeal followed.
http://www.civilrights.org/iss ues/religious/details.cfm?id=9 289
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom line, the District court dismissed the case. Reason, not as clear as
you would like others to think jeffy.
[end excerpt]
********************************************************************************
More info
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/h amilton/20040617.html
MARCI A. HAMILTON
*********************************************************************************
http://www.restorethepledge.com/
Go to the above site
On the side bar cllick on Past Litigation
Next click on The Pledge of Allegiance Lawsuit
Click here for the briefs, orders, etc.
next click on
District Court for Eastern California
Below you can read the actual ruling by the District court and I would love
to see you quote any references to standing
District Court for the Eastern District of California
2000-03-08 Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow (Plaintiff) files Original
Complaint against the United States Congress, the State of California, and
local School District parties. The complaint alleges the phrase “under God”
in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment.
2000-04-12 The School District defendants submit their Motion to
Dismiss.
2000-04-21 Plaintiff submits Memorandum in response to School
District’s Motion to Dismiss.
2000-05-04 School District defendants submit <Reply Brief>.
2000-05-15 Hearing on the Motion to Dismiss held before Magistrate
Judge Nowinski.
2000-05-25 Magistrate Judge Nowinski files his Findings and
Recommendation, recommending that the Motion be upheld.
2000-05-31 Plaintiff submits his Objections to Magistrate Judge
Nowinski’s Recommendation.
2000-06-06 School District submits <Response to Objections>.
2000-06-20 Supplemental Authority submitted: Santa Fe Indep Sch. Dist.
v. Doe.
2000-07-21 District Judge Schwartz files his Order, upholding the
Motion to Dismiss.
**********************************************************************************
>:|I thought that was his first
>:|appeal.
It was but earlier in this same post you mentioned
>:|The local Superior court should have turned him down.
It was never before that court.
Once more you show your confusion to actual facts
>:|> What exactly did that court say, EXACTLY SAY?
>:|>
>:|
>:|Which court, the USSC? It said that Newdow had no standing to bring the
>:|suit.
No stupid the District Court
You like to brag that you were right, that you had said Newdow didn't have
standing.
Jim fails to accept that the US District Court held that Newdow had no
Standing, and the USSC upheld that position contrary to what the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals has to say.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1682/
"The district court dismissed Newdow's complaint for lack of standing,
because he and the mother of his daughter are divorced and he does not have
custody. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that
Newdow did have standing "to challenge a practice that interferes with his
right to direct the religious education of his daughter." The Ninth Circuit
ruled that Congress's 1954 act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge
and the school district policy requiring it be recited both violated the
First Amendment's establishment clause."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/0c29d906ad74e504?hl=en&
As you can see from the above that actual statement rested on your
confusion over what you thought that District Court had ruled.
Fact is the District Court never made any such ruling
>:|>>:|He just so happened to get a 3 judge panel that
>:|>>:|consisted of three of the most liberal justices on the most liberal
>:|>>circuit
>:|>>:|court in the land.
>:|>
>:|> False
>:|>
>:|
>:|False? How can you say that? Everybody
Everybody?
Liar
I didn't say it, I know a lot of people who didn't say it
What you really mean is your limited right wing sources of propaganda that
you rely on said it
>:|said that the three judge panel
>:|consisted of the most liberal of the judges on the court. And, every court
>:|watcher in the land cites the 9th as the most liberal court in the country.
The judge who wrote the opinion is a moderate
Sorry dude, you just made a ass of yourself again
http://www.law.washington.edu/news/Articles/2003Archive/CalandrilloPledgeofAllegiance.html
[excerpt]
Even with the oncoming legal debate which will began on the issue, the
political implications have been evident throughout both the media and
government. Immediately after the initial ruling in favor of Newdow by the
9th Circuit the Senate passed a resolution 99-0 and the House passed a
similar resolution 416-3 both condemning the ruling. Steve Calandrillo,
University of Washington Law Professor, and former clerk for Judge Goodwin
weighed in on the resolutions, stating that they were an example of
“Congress responding to political constituencies.” He asserted that “given
the fact that the Senate Resolution was passed four hours after the
decision was issued, it is likely that few members had the time to give its
legal merits deep thought or contemplation.” Similarly, Angel Oquendo,
University of Connecticut Law Professor, and former clerk to Judge
Reinhardt claimed that “Its very hard for elected politicians to take an
objective stance on” such a divisive issue. Consequently, Prof. Oquendo
believed that in this instance the “courts have to step up to task” in
order to ensure the judicial process was not controlled by politics. This
widespread government condemnation of the decision has also been voiced by
the media, where Judge Goodwin and Judge Reinhardt were quickly given the
label of “liberal activist.”
This is a misconstrued characterization according to Prof. Calandrillo and
Prof. Oquendo, who worked with the respective judges. In regards to Judge
Goodwin, who is a decorated World War II veteran and whom President Nixon
appointed in 1971, Prof. Calandrillo points to the fact that Goodwin has
always been a respected judge viewed as a moderate jurist in the legal
community. Similarly, Prof. Oquendo dismisses labels of “liberal” and
“activist” against Judge Reinhardt because from his experience Judge
Reinhardt has always valued “being faithful to the constitution.”
Furthermore, he believes the “reputation is a bit unfair, or a distortion
because the term liberal is a term that’s been used in so many different
ways.” These attacks on the judges themselves are indicative of the heated
political discussion which has arisen out of the case. One of the main
arguments of critics of the decision is that without the phrase “under god”
in the pledge, rather than endorsing religion, the pledge will effectively
do the opposite and endorse atheism. However, Michael Newdow, the doctor
who brought up the case contests that belief by asking “Was it [the pledge]
endorsing atheism in 1953?” Prior to the 1954 act the pledge of allegiance
did not contain the phrase “under god.” Furthermore, Newdow points out
regardless of what the pledge suggests without the phrase “under god”, with
that particular phrase the pledge has effectively “Endorsed Christianity
for the past 50 years.” That particular debate has been one of the central
ones in the political struggle over the decision and has at times
overshadowed the legal debate.
Despite the attention given to the political debate, the legal debate over
the 9th Circuit decision has been equally as heated. As Eugene Volokh,
Professor of Law at UCLA and an expert in “church and state” issues,
explains, the 9th Circuit decision “was primarily based on a coercion
analysis.” In this particular analysis the court applied the test that
states “at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not
coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or
otherwise to act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious
faith, or tends to do so.” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 580, 120 L. Ed. 2d
467, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992) Here the 9th Circuit, relying on prior
precedent isolated the fact that the EGUSD policy required that the
students were placed in the difficult position of having to choose between
participating in a exercise which affirmed religion or protesting through
staying silent and not participating. Not only did this daily policy force
these children to make this decision in what may have appeared (for example
for an atheist) as a government mechanism of trying to imprint the
orthodoxy of a monotheistic religion but it also did not take into account
the fact that the young age of the elementary school resulted in
impressionable minds which would possibly be unduly biased or manipulated.
However, Prof. Volokh doubts that such a decision would necessarily come
out of any future Supreme Court ruling as he believes that Justice Kennedy
in particular “will likely be unpersuaded by the coercion on endorsement
arguments.” The dissenting opinion in the 9th Circuit ruling provided by
Judge Fernandez agreed with decision on the constitutionality of the 1954
Act but claimed that the effect of the phrase in the pledge would be “de
minimis” and thus did not require removal from the pledge. In rebuttal
Newdow claims that “The fact that it [the case] attracted so much public
debate,” ensures the effect is not “de minimis.”
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|news:l5qke1dsn0budpjjj...@4ax.com...
You don't cite anything clown
This it is your name on those posts with no citing any other source. Thus,
a lawyer would have no trouble saying you were the source of the libellous
statements
Now you might win, but it would bankrupt you with legal costs trying to
win.
People like you are wreck less showing total indifference and disregard to
and for others when you make your unsupported and unsubstantiated claims.
It never enters your mind, not for a second how much damage you might be
doing to another.
You don't care.
All you care about is your need, your compulsion to post your opinions on a
variety of subjects, most of which you are totally clueless about.
There are even posts that you have posted where you say details aren't
important.
Jeffy all a lawyer would need is to present just one of those posts where
you say or imply details aren't important and you have lost your case. no
amount of money and no lawyer, no matter how good, can save you from that
one.
>:|Somebody else might have made something up that I turned around
>:|and repeated, that is certainly possible -
its your name on the post, that makes you the man in the hot seat and the
one named in the libel suit.
>:|however I don't think it's true.
>:|But I have not been the source of false information ever.
liar
That thing I post from time to time, that thing that shows what others say
about you and why they say if begins with comments you have made that are
false.
>:|
>:|Wait, you're right. I characterized the mother of his child as an ex-wife,
>:|when the fact is he and she were never married, which makes her an
>:|ex-girlfriend. Still an ex-, but a different degree of ex-. Forgive my
>:|ignorance, but I don't think that is neither libel or slander, and it
>:|certainly isn't harmful.
Sorry dude you made a number of negative comments about Newdow with no
factual support to or for any of them.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Frankly, I hope Newdow loses now just because it will leave you eating crow,
That would be impossible since the Pledge with under God in it is
unconstitutional no matter what political based judge or court has to say
that might differ with that.
Fools like you can be taken in easy but those who know knows that Congress
made a law in 1954 totally disregarding the following:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Congress did make a law respecting an establishment of religion
What religion?
(1) Religion period, saying the pledge with the words under God is
proclaiming that God exists and that is respecting any and all religions
that have any kind of Divine something at their core
(2) Monotheistic religions
(3) The Christian religion
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|>>:|He just so happened to get a 3 judge panel that
>:|>>:|consisted of three of the most liberal justices on the most liberal
>:|>>circuit
>:|>>:|court in the land.
>:|>
>:|> False
>:|>
>:|
>:|False? How can you say that? Everybody
Everybody?
Liar
I didn't say it, I know a lot of people who didn't say it
What you really mean is your limited right wing sources of propaganda that
you rely on said it
>:|said that the three judge panel
>:|consisted of the most liberal of the judges on the court. And, every court
>:|watcher in the land cites the 9th as the most liberal court in the country.
The judge who wrote the opinion is a moderate
http://www.law.washington.edu/news/Articles/2003Archive/CalandrilloPledgeofAllegiance.html
[excerpt]
***************************************************************
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> The USSC took the easy way out.
>:|> The USSC jumped into state law and they were incorrect on that point as
>:|> has
>:|> been pointed out by a number of legal scholars
>:|>
>:|> Ever hear of Federalism, something this USSC prides itself on upholding
>:|> except when they can appoint a right wing conservative President of the US
>:|> and rule against precedence in a Pledge case.
>:|>
>:|>>:|HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE TIME
>:|>>:|OF DAY FROM THE 9TH.
>:|>
>:|> False
>:|>
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|It is reasonable to point out that Newdow lost in several lower courts
>:|>>that
>:|>>:|said the Pledge was fine.
>:|>
>:|> False
>:|> Several?
>:|> One court. stupid
>:|>
>:|
>:|Newdow started out in the US District court?
Yes he did. We went through this before.
THE FACTS:
YOU SAY:
***********************************************************************************************************
I PRESENT:
Now notice this:
>:|I thought that was his first
>:|appeal.
It was but earlier in this same post you mentioned
>:|The local Superior court should have turned him down.
It was never before that court.
Once more you show your confusion to actual facts
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|> "J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|> What exactly did that court say, EXACTLY SAY?
>:|>
>:|
>:|Which court, the USSC? It said that Newdow had no standing to bring the
>:|suit.
No stupid the District Court
You like to brag that you were right, that you had said Newdow didn't have
standing.
Jim fails to accept that the US District Court held that Newdow had no
Standing, and the USSC upheld that position contrary to what the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals has to say.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1682/
"The district court dismissed Newdow's complaint for lack of standing,
because he and the mother of his daughter are divorced and he does not have
custody. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that
Newdow did have standing "to challenge a practice that interferes with his
right to direct the religious education of his daughter." The Ninth Circuit
ruled that Congress's 1954 act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge
and the school district policy requiring it be recited both violated the
First Amendment's establishment clause."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/0c29d906ad74e504?hl=en&
As you can see from the above that actual statement rested on your
confusion over what you thought that District Court had ruled.
Fact is the District Court never made any such ruling
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
Why, because you say so?
>:|The local Superior court should have turned him down.
Local Superior Court?
How did it get in the act?
Do you even know the history of this case? It doesn't appear as if you do.
***************************************************************
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Of course I know that, that's why I said that the children can opt out.
The USSC has also stated being able to opt out is not acceptable
You don't seem to know that.
Don't forget this was your original statement:
>:|But reciting the Pledge is not a mandatory activity, the clients can opt out
>:|of the daily exercise if they want to. Even Newdow's own daughter could opt
>:|out, but he was not satisfied with that because she was still exposed to the
>:|word, God coming from the other children.
>:|
>:|And Federal Law permits the recital of the Pledge, indeed it compels -- or
>:|nearly compels -- the recital. State Education Code is attempting to follow
>:|Federal Law in this regard.
>:|
http://66.34.103.193/ufc/Other/Gov-Religion/Pledge.htm
1943: The Supreme Court rules that students can not be forced to recite
the pledge. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
The USSC has also stated being able to opt out is not acceptable
Federal law does not compel recital of the Pledge
Christopher A. Lee
>"J Strickland" <sp...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>:|Of course I know that, that's why I said that the children can opt out.
>
>The USSC has also stated being able to opt out is not acceptable
>
>You don't seem to know that.
>
>Don't forget this was your original statement:
They don't seem to grasp that the pledge is the government telling us
that this nation is ruled by somebody else's deity whether we like it
or not.
>>:|But reciting the Pledge is not a mandatory activity, the clients can opt out
>>:|of the daily exercise if they want to. Even Newdow's own daughter could opt
>>:|out, but he was not satisfied with that because she was still exposed to the
>>:|word, God coming from the other children.
Which is a flammatory and deliberate falsehood. People object to the
government telling them that this nation is controlled by their deity.
It isn't, any more than it is controlled by Zeus and for exactly the
same reason.
"One nation under a figment of the deluded imagination of [insert
whichever authority figure is leading the pledge]".
Somehow I don't think they'll like that. But it's no different.