Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional
jal...@cox.net
Some things just never change, Ken is one of those things. (Now I wonder if
this means my mailbox will get flooded again)
His arguments remains that same even when they are trashed in other threads
and in other news groups.
Generally speaking that defines a troll.
[Some one had originally written]
> > This is for those people such as Ken who live with the delusion that
> > the 'founding fathers' of the government of these United States
> > created a system based upon mythical 'Christian beliefs'.
> >
> > The Constitution is the foundation of our government and was written
> > and approved by the 'founding fathers'.
> >
> > Constitution of the United States:
> > Article VI, Section 3: The Senators and Representatives before
> > mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all
> > executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the
> > several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this
> > Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
> > qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote
> And this has WHAT to do with the Pledge?
[Some one had originally written]
> > Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:
> > Article I: 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 to
> > peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
> > grievances.
> > The 'founding fathers' wanted religion out of government. They said
> > it once in the body of the Constitution, and repeated it as the first
> > element of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
> They were quite clear in what they wanted. A prohibition against there
>ever being a SINGLE official state religion. NOT the outlawing of public
>expression of ALL faith.
[Some one had originally written]
> > The Republicans have been trying to insert religion into the
> > government since the party was founded. They stuck God on the money
> > in 1863, and then stuffed Him into the 'Pledge of Allegiance to the
> > Flag' in 1954. These actions are clearly at variance with the stated
> > wishes of the 'founding fathers'.
> So *YOU* and THREE crackpot judge in San Francisco say. The ringleader
>now AWARE just how FAR OUT his opinion is, is reversing his position. It is
>unlikely that this NUTTY decision will survive review by the other 6 judges,
>but it has a snowball's chance in hell of making it past the SCOTUS. Maybe
>you don't realize that 63% of the reversals of Circuirt Courts of Appeals
>are the 9th Circuit. The MOST reversed appeals court in the country. What
>does that mean? They get it WRONG more often than ALL the other courts of
>appeals combined!
"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote
>:|>>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>:|>>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote
> They were quite clear in what they wanted. A prohibition against there
> ever being a SINGLE official state religion. NOT the outlawing of public
> expression of ALL faith.
"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote
>:|>>Some interesting information taken from other web sites, as well as
>:|>>quotes...
>:|>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>:|>> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
>:|>>
>:|>> MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses were intended only to
>:|>> prevent the establishment of a national church.
>:|>>
>:|>> FACT: If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church,
>:|>> they had plenty of opportunities to state exactly that in the First
>:|>> Amendment. In fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read in
>:|>> part, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of
>:|>> religious belief, nor shall any national religion be
>:|>> established...." This draft was rejected. Following extensive
>:|>> debate, the language found in the First Amendment today was
>:|>> settled on.
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote
>:|> You know, I worked during my summer internship in college with the
>:|> commissioners of uniform laws on drafting what became known as the
>:|> Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. Those of us who labored
>:|> almost a year on assembling the language had pretty well convinced
>:|> ourselves that we made our intent clear on some points. As the law
>:|> was put into use our original intent was widely ignored by lawyers
>:|> and judges, even though the "commissioner's
>:|> note" very elaborately spelled out that intent.
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote
>:|> The language was a "compromise" but the INTENT of the framers was
>:|> very clear from the writings of the framers in places like the
>:|> Federalist Papers. You are trying to make your point the hard way.
>:|> Just because they compromised on the language, this
>:|> does NOT .... "PROVE" your point that the intent was to BAN ALL
>:|> PUBLIC religious expression.
What does the Federalist papers say about religion?
Whar did Madison say:
Madison's Vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address,
approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the
Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi
Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between
Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of
both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could
not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs
its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and
the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the
people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the
church from the State."
(Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents'
already furnished in their short history"
(Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of
importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as
every past one has done, in showing that religion and
Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed
together"
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of
religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid
collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a
usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or
alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire
abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond
the necessity of preserving public order and
protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote
>:|> That flies in the face of ALL logic if you look at the
>:|> history of the emigration to America. WHY folks moved here. They
>:|> wanted to be FREE to PRACTICE their religion, what YOU want is to
>:|> STOP THAT!
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see you proving your claim above. In addition, most people did not
come to this country to be free to practice their religion. Some did, most
didn't. Most of those who did only wanted to be free to practice their
religion, not to let others practice their religion.
>:|> Just like the Kings in Europe wanted to IMPOSE by FORCE their
>:|> beliefs. There is ABSOLUTELY NO difference between YOUR position and
>:|> that of the Kings of Europe.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote
>:|>> MYTH: Separation of church and state is not in the U.S.
>:|>> Constitution.
>:|>> FACT: It is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and
>:|>> state" does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean
>:|>> the concept isn't there.
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote in message
>:|> YES IT DOES! To argue otherwise is to demand that we pay heed to the
>:|> man behind the curtain!
No it doesn't.
Study Guide for Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd1.htm
A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote
>:|>> What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter
>:|>> to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then
>:|>> president, declared that the American people through the First
>:|>> Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and
>:|>> state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a
>:|>> similar phrase 150 years earlier.)
>:|>> Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the
>:|>> post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James
>:|>> Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said
>:|>> in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality
>:|>> of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been
>:|>> manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and
>:|>> state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s),
>:|>> Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between
>:|>> religion and government in the Constitution of the United
>:|>> States."
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote
>:|> Let me ask you this. IF all of the founders AGREE 100% with YOUR
>:|> demagogic view, WHY did they have a nativity display on the White
>:|>> House lawn?
When did the founders have a nativity display on the White House lawn?
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote in message
>:|> logical that THEY would have not condones the prayer at the opening
>:|> of Congress, and they wouold have EXECUTED the CHAPLAIN if there was
>:|> such a belief.
False
Chaplains are politcs
Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm
Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm
Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm
The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
Duche's Letter To Washington
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/duche.htm
Representative Tucker on the Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote
>:|>> Further proof that the founders did not intend for the government
>:|>> to be Christian is found in the Treaty of Tripoli, a trade
>:|>> agreementsigned between the United States and the Muslim region
>:|>> of north Africa in 1797 after negotiations under George
>:|>> Washington. The document, which was approved by the Senate under
>:|>> John Adams, states flatly, "[T]he Government of the United States
>:|>> is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...." (The
>:|>> assertion remained a part of the trade agreement for eight years,
>:|>> until the treaty was renegotiated.)
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote
>:|> Now WHO the hell is arguing that America MUST be a "CHRISTIAN"
>:|> nation? The argument HERE is FREE EXERCIZE of ALL religion versus the
>:|> imposition of an ATHIEST STATE!
>:|> The use of LAW to prevent public expression of even the most timid
>:|> religious expression. Such as seeking to BAN singing "God Bless
>:|> America" in public. To REMOVE "In God We Trust" from our
>:|> currency..... That is FREE EXERCIZE in nature. While **YOU** claim
>:|> that Hindus are GODLESS, most of my friends from India would eb
>:|> insulted that you demean Krishna.
Who is moving to ban singing "God Bless America" in public?
Why should "In God We Trust " be on a nations currency?
In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash By Ralph C. Reynolds
http://home.flash.net/~lbartley/au/issues/godtrust.htm
"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote
>:|>> I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring
>:|>> about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. (Thomas
>:|>> Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799. From
>:|>> Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of
>:|>> American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 499.)
>:|>>
>:|>> I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
>:|>> American people which declared that their legislature should
>:|>> make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit
>:|>> the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation
>:|>> between church and state. (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in
>:|>> a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from
>:|>> George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey:
>:|>> Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369)
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote
>:|> I see no problem with Jefferson's statement. That does NOT
>:|> mean, however as YOU ASSERT, that the word "GOD" can never be
>:|> mentioned in public!
It's mentioned in public all the time. You seem to have a hard time
distinguishing between individuals and govt.
>:|> That anyone who SINGS, "God Bless America" must be executed where he
>:|> stands!
Your credibility is seriously damaged with tuch stupid and outlandish
remarks
>:|> Only a completre raving IDIOT would take the above statement
>:|> of Jefferson to say that what he meant was that we can NEVER
>:|> use the word "GOD" anywhere in public or in any form in Government.
In Government. Different story
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of
importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as
every past one has done, in showing that religion and
Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed
together"
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote
>:|>> Chaplainships of both Congress and the armed services were
>:|>> established sixteen years before the First Amendment was
>:|>> adopted. It would have been fatuous folly for anybody to
>:|>> stir a major controversy over a minor matter before the
>:|>> meaning of the amendment had been threshed out in
>:|>> weightier matters.
"Ken" <k...@atlantic.net> wrote
>:|> BULLSHIT RATIONALIZATION! Your claim is UNANIMITY among the
>:|> founders to ban ALL forems of public religious expression...
>:|> and ANY even the most tentative connection with govenrment.
>:|> IF as you CLAIM that ALL of the founders agreed that ALL
>:|> religious expression MUST BE BANNED...
>:|> ... then certainly the issue of chaplains were of such import that
>:|> they would have BANNED them.
>:|> This brings up an interesting side note. CHAPLAINS. What is
>:|> interesting is the efforts of Atheists to BAN chaplains in the military
>:|> and to BAN churches on military bases.
>:|> To BAN the wearing of ANY religious items by military people. This
>:|> would include crosses on chains, and anything similar.
>:|> The argument HAS BEEN MADE by the Freedom FROM religion folks
>:|> that since the military people are govenment employees paid by
>:|> the government and essentially on duty 24 hours a day that they
>:|> should be BARRED from any form of prayer or any other religious
>:|> service.
>:|> That funeral ceremonies in National Cemeteries BAR any
>:|> ministers from attending or offering prayers at the burrials.
>:|> IF you are going to make the arguments that you do, at least
>:|> be honest enough to play with the full agenda here.
James Madison, a man who knew a thing or two about what was and wasn't
constitutional had this to say on the matters of chaplains:
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent
with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of
religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the
negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids
everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing
Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the
national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected
by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of
the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national
establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious
worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved
by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of
religion paid by the entire nation?
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of
equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The
tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship
agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid
a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects,
this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers
who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches.
Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be
appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or
that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and
exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be
tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to
govern the minor.
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or
voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as
well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them
like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How
small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose!
How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its
exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right
of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious
worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than
that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov
Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily
devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already
degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality!
Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of
a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it
the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis
quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."
Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for
the army and navy, than erect them into a political
authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is
seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to
adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in
the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong
one. Look thro' the armies & navies of the world, and say whether in the
appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual
interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most
in view: whether here, as elsewhere the political care of
religion is not a nominal more than a real aid. If the spirit of armies be
devout, the spirit out of the armies will never be Less so;
and a failure of religious instruction &, exhortation from a voluntary
source within or without, will rarely happen: if such be not
the spirit of armies, the official services of their Teachers are not
likely to produce it. It is more likely to flow from the labours of
a spontaneous zeal. The armies of the Puritans had their appointed
Chaplains; but without these there would have been no lack
of public devotion in that devout age.
The case of navies with insulated crews may be less within the scope of
these reflections. But it is not entirely so. The chance of
a devout officer, might be of as much worth to religion, as the service of
an ordinary chaplain. [were it admitted that religion has
a real interest in the latter.] But we are always to keep in mind that it
is safer to trust the consequences of a right principle, than
reasonings in support of a bad one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Soyack
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:96j4nu45uljtcr9r8...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Some things just never change, Ken is one of those things.
And you are one of those things. Your arguments are pointless. The courts
will make the
decision. And now Newdow has moved on the challenge the House and Senate
Chaplains.
Rich Soyack
<cut jalison's usually bs>
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|news:96j4nu45uljtcr9r8...@4ax.com...
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> Some things just never change, Ken is one of those things.
>:|
>:|And you are one of those things. Your arguments are pointless. The courts
>:|will make the
>:|decision. And now Newdow has moved on the challenge the House and Senate
>:|Chaplains.
Actually, he has three cases before the courts. You are behind times.
There is this:
He actually has three cases in the courts:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|Which leads me to what I really could use. I don't know if you know, but I
>:|actually have three cases now before the courts:
>:|(1) Getting "under God" out of the Pledge (the "Pledge case");
Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
Columbia. Newdow v Eagen
and these:
>:|(2) Getting an injunction to prevent future presidents from having chaplains
>:|at their inaugurations (the "Bush case"); and
>:|(3) Getting rid of legislative chaplains (the "Marsh case").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:|<cut jalison's usually bs>
My facts, data, etc that you can't deal with, can't counter, can't
effectively refute, so you default and cut it. Hoping it will go away.
**********************************************
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.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|news:60307077.02090...@posting.google.com...
>:|>
>:|> > "Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|> >>
>:|> >> "Congress shall make no law respecting
>:|> >> an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
>:|> >> the free exercise thereof..."
>:|> >>
>:|> >> MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses
>:|> >> were intended only to prevent the establishment
>:|> >> of a national church.
>:|
>:|Ha ha ha. You'd like that to be a "myth." It ain't.
>:|Live with it.
>:|
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|> >> FACT: If all the framers wanted to do was ban
>:|> >> a national church,
>:|
>:|I.e. an "establishment of religion"...
One form of an establishment of religion
However, the real point is
"RESPECTING"
I.e. Something can fall short of establishing a religion and still be
unconstitutional.
It doesn't say, Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, it says
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion.
>:|
>:|> >> they had plenty of opportunities to state
>:|> >> exactly that in the First Amendment.
>:|
>:|Which they did.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:|> >> In fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read
>:|> >> in part, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged
>:|> >> on account of religious belief,
>:|
>:|...which is more compactly covered in the free exercise
>:|clause that means exactly that. There is, btw, no such
>:|thing as a "civil right" to be insulated by other people's
>:|free expression of religion or of religious sentiment.
>:|
actually, there is.
It's called the right to walk away on a public street. It's called private
property. It's called your religious rights do not trump my rights. It's
called I have the right not to have to participate in your religious
practices. and so on.
>:|> >> nor shall any national religion be established...."
>:|> >> This draft was rejected. [...]
>:|
>:|Yeah, too wordy. See above.
>:|
>:|> Well, Jefferson and Madison very elaborately spelled out
>:|> what was meant by the establishment clause.
>:|
>:|There's a principle in law that legislators know what
>:|they're doing when they write a law and that what
>:|they wrote is what they intended. Yeah, the courts
>:|in their majestic power overlook that when judges
>:|find it convenient to do so, which is how the plain
>:|language of the First Amendment has been perverted
>:|into the "separation of church and State" stuff many
>:|believe it is today.
There is a principle that also says one has to be able to determine what
any intent might have been.
How does one determine the intent with incomplete records as is the case
with the debates in Congress and no records which is the case in the
several states ratifying debates and votes?
Six men ultimately wrote the religious clauses of the then 3rd Amendment.
The full Congress did not debate that wording nor vote on that wording.
There are no records of any discussions, debates of votes of that joint
House Senate Committee. Only one man who was actually on that committee
that actually wrote the language of the religious clauses ever wrote or did
anything that defined those words. That man was James Madison
BTW, those aren't as "plain" as you seem to want to paint them. (Your
focus on establishment of religion which isn't what those "plain words" say
and your ignoring the operative and defining word "Respecting" which is
what it does say, says loudly you don't know what those words mean)
What Madison said and did that defined at least the Establishment Clause
**********************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|news:60307077.02090...@posting.google.com...
>:|>
>:|> Society 'splained...
>:|> >>
>:|> >> Besides, the use of the word "reflecting" implies
>:|> >> a very broad scope for the [establishment of religion]
>:|> >> clause [in the First Amendment to the US Constitution].
>:|> >
>:|> > 'Cept the word "reflecting" ain't in it. Duh!
>:|>
>:|> Sorry. My bad:
>:|>
>:|> Respecting:
>:|>
>:|> 1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM
>:|> b : to refrain from interfering with
>:|> 2 : to have reference to
>:|
>:|The definition behind door #2 fits within the context
>:|of the Amendment. "Congress shall make no law
>:|to have reference to an establishment of religion."
>:|
"Congress (which now means any level of government) shall make no law
RESPECTING (touching, helping, supporting touching upon, touching, aiding,
hindering, applying to, have to do with, etc) an ESTABLISHMENT
(institution) of RELIGION (any religious sect, society, denomination,
religion), . . . "
Rich Soyack
news:m0o6nuke9dgk3bbeb...@4ax.com...
No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
Rich Soyack
Nemesis
"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:KrJc9.1602$sd2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > >:|And you are one of those things. Your arguments are pointless. The
courts
> > >:|will make the decision. And now Newdow has moved on the challenge
the House and Senate
> > >:|Chaplains.
> > Actually, he has three cases before the courts. You are behind times.
> > There is this:
> > He actually has three cases in the courts:
> >:|Which leads me to what I really could use. I don't know if you know,
but I
> > >:|actually have three cases now before the courts:
> > >:|(1) Getting "under God" out of the Pledge (the "Pledge case");
> > Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
> > courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
> > Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
> > SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
> > Columbia. Newdow v Eagen
> > and these:
> > >:|(2) Getting an injunction to prevent future presidents from having
chaplains
> > >:|at their inaugurations (the "Bush case"); and
> > >:|(3) Getting rid of legislative chaplains (the "Marsh case").
He really thinks he can prevail on this.
> > My facts, data, etc that you can't deal with, can't counter, can't
> > effectively refute, so you default and cut it. Hoping it will go away.
> No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
It is a view of a very verbal minority. Newdow has merely exposed more
of the Atheist agenda than has been the public record before now. He has
stated that he wants scout troops and chapels off military posts, and the
chaplain corps out of the military completely. The real agenda that is yet
to be part of the public discourse is the agenda mast that point. Because
even among atheists it starts to tend to thin out the ranks of those who wil
l march as far as the extremists.
Society
news:l7o6nuk8r4u1g3cv4...@4ax.com...
>
> Society 'splained all...
> >
> >:|"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >:|news:60307077.02090...@posting.google.com...
> >:|>
> >:|>
> >:|> 1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM
> >:|> b : to refrain from interfering with
> >:|> 2 : to have reference to
> >:|
> >:|The definition behind door #2 fits within the context
> >:|of the Amendment. "Congress shall make no law
> >:|to have reference to an establishment of religion."
>
> "Congress (which now means any level of government)
> shall make no law RESPECTING (touching, helping,
> supporting touching upon, touching, aiding, hindering,
> applying to, have to do with, etc)
Nice try, but you just supplied synonyms for "infringing,"
not "respecting," which means "directly pertaining to."
> an ESTABLISHMENT (institution) of RELIGION (any
> religious sect, society, denomination, religion), . . . "
Just as I pointed out, the Establishment clause isn't
about religion in all contexts, it just forbids setting up
a specific State religious institution in the USA.
(Notice the use of the word "of" in the above-quoted phrase.)
The First Amendment, therefore, does not forbid and
level of government in the USA from adding the phrase
"under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, since that
is not a "religious institution" but merely a religious
sentiment.
Nor does the First Amendment's Establishment
Clause forbid any level of government in the USA from
requiring that children attending government schools
recite the Pledge. "He who pays the piper, calls the tune,"
as it was written in a US Supreme Court majority opinion
as recently as the 1990s.
--
Because 99% of atheists are jerks,
it makes all of us atheists look bad.
Society
news:d7o6nu46o73e5hd35...@4ax.com...
>
> Society says...
>
> >:|> > "Aleph Null" claimed...
> >:|> >>
> >:|> >> "Congress shall make no law respecting
> >:|> >> an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
> >:|> >> the free exercise thereof..."
> >:|> >>
> >:|> >> MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses
> >:|> >> were intended only to prevent the establishment
> >:|> >> of a national church.
> >:|
> >:|Ha ha ha. You'd like that to be a "myth." It ain't.
> >:|Live with it.
>
> Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
Nice try, jalison, but I made a counter-claim and had
already substantiated it earlier in the thread. By contrast,
the myth-maker wannabee was reduced to supplying
still _more_ support for my counter-claim, illustrating
how strongly I had demolished the earlier "myth" claim
you can't let go of. Thus, my counter-claim was most
certainly not "unsubstantiated."
jal...@cox.net
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|news:d7o6nu46o73e5hd35...@4ax.com...
>:|>
>:|> Society says...
>:|>
>:|> >:|> > "Aleph Null" claimed...
>:|> >:|> >>
>:|> >:|> >> "Congress shall make no law respecting
>:|> >:|> >> an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
>:|> >:|> >> the free exercise thereof..."
>:|> >:|> >>
>:|> >:|> >> MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses
>:|> >:|> >> were intended only to prevent the establishment
>:|> >:|> >> of a national church.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Ha ha ha. You'd like that to be a "myth." It ain't.
>:|> >:|Live with it.
>:|>
>:|> Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>:|
>:|Nice try, jalison, but I made a counter-claim and had
>:|already substantiated it earlier in the thread.
Your comment is incorrect.
Nice try on your part, but no cigar.
>:| By contrast,
>:|the myth-maker wannabee was reduced to supplying
>:|still _more_ support for my counter-claim, illustrating
>:|how strongly I had demolished the earlier "myth" claim
>:|you can't let go of. Thus, my counter-claim was most
>:|certainly not "unsubstantiated."
If you accomplished all of this, at least in your mind, you should have no
problem re-posting it again here.
Your choice.
Establishing a national church would have been next to impossible, and most
of those involved with the framing of the constitution and amendments to it
a couple years later was very much aware of that fact.
====================================================
"Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
>:|"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|news:60307077.02090...@posting.google.com...
>:|>
>:|> > "Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|> >>
>:|> >> "Congress shall make no law respecting
>:|> >> an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
>:|> >> the free exercise thereof..."
>:|> >>
>:|> >> MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses
>:|> >> were intended only to prevent the establishment
>:|> >> of a national church.
>:|
>:|Ha ha ha. You'd like that to be a "myth." It ain't.
>:|Live with it.
>:|
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|> >> FACT: If all the framers wanted to do was ban
>:|> >> a national church,
>:|
>:|I.e. an "establishment of religion"...
One form of an establishment of religion
However, the real point is
"RESPECTING"
I.e. Something can fall short of establishing a religion and still be
unconstitutional.
It doesn't say, Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, it says
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion.
>:|
>:|> >> they had plenty of opportunities to state
>:|> >> exactly that in the First Amendment.
>:|
>:|Which they did.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jal...@cox.net
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|news:l7o6nuk8r4u1g3cv4...@4ax.com...
>:|>
>:|> Society 'splained all...
>:|> >
>:|> >:|"Aleph Null" <alephn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|> >:|news:60307077.02090...@posting.google.com...
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Respecting:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> 1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM
>:|> >:|> b : to refrain from interfering with
>:|> >:|> 2 : to have reference to
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|The definition behind door #2 fits within the context
>:|> >:|of the Amendment. "Congress shall make no law
>:|> >:|to have reference to an establishment of religion."
>:|>
>:|> "Congress (which now means any level of government)
>:|> shall make no law RESPECTING (touching, helping,
>:|> supporting touching upon, touching, aiding, hindering,
>:|> applying to, have to do with, etc)
>:|
>:|Nice try, but you just supplied synonyms for "infringing,"
>:|not "respecting," which means "directly pertaining to."
>:|
I will stand by my original:
"Congress (which now means any level of government) shall make no law
RESPECTING (touching, helping, supporting touching upon, touching, aiding,
hindering, applying to, have to do with, etc) an ESTABLISHMENT
(institution) of RELIGION (any religious sect, society, denomination,
religion), . . . "
I will toss in the following just for fun:
Respect n. Probably about 1380. Resepcte relation, reference, regard,
borrowed from Old French Respect, and directly from Latin Respectus
(genitive respectus, regard; literally, act of looking back at one, from
respect, past participle stem of respecere look back at, regard, consider
Respect v. 1548 to regard, consider, take into account, probably from the
noun reinforced by middle french respecter look back, delay, respect, and
latin Respectare regard look back at.
The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. The Origins of American
English Words, Robert K. Barnhart, Harper Collins, (1995) p 657
-
>:|> an ESTABLISHMENT (institution) of RELIGION (any
>:|> religious sect, society, denomination, religion), . . . "
>:|
>:|Just as I pointed out, the Establishment clause isn't
>:|about religion in all contexts, it just forbids setting up
>:|a specific State religious institution in the USA.
>:|(Notice the use of the word "of" in the above-quoted phrase.)
and I will add this as well:
Study Guide for Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd1.htm
A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
Study Guide: What is "Establishment?"
Establishment, Part I
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/est01.html
Establishment, Part II
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/est02.html
Establishment, Part III
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/est03.html
Establishment, Part IV
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/est04.html
Establishment, Part V
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/est05.html
>:|The First Amendment, therefore, does not forbid and
>:|level of government in the USA from adding the phrase
>:|"under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, since that
>:|is not a "religious institution" but merely a religious
>:|sentiment.
There is actually a federal court that disagreed with you.
You might want to read the opinion,
The Decision: There are numerous references to the 1954 law, including a
few quotes from the legislative history.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf.
http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawDeci
sion&cid=1024078906457&t=LawDecision
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
along with the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One (Constitutionally Illiterate) Nation Under God
The Constitution Can't Protect Our Rights If We Don't Understand Them
Jamin B. Raskin is a professor of constitutional law at American University
and director of its Marshall Brennan Fellowship Program.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5966
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:06:48 -0400
To: Billy [deleted for privacy]
From: "Glen P. Goffin
Subject: One American's Opinion
Dear Billy,
Why is it that a doctor from Scotland can see what is wrong with
our current pledge and so many Americans can not? However, the real issue
is whether or not the "Government of the United States" can
constitutionally (legally) legislate "religion " into the official oaths
of our secular federal republic. Here is what James Madison, in Section 3
of his "Memorial and Remonstrance," had to say about this issue:
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish
Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with
the same ease any particular sect of Christianity, in exclusion of all
other Sects?"
Why did the frightened members of those 1950's Congresses
suddenly decide that we needed the protection of a supernatural God?
America had fought and won two world wars and a bloody police action
without having those two words ("under God") in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Why did this same government decide that we must change our national
motto from "E Pluribus Unum" (From many one) to "In God We Trust?" When I
took my oath as an officer, I did not swear to defend any supernatural
God. I swore to defend the Constitution and the principle of Church-State
separation embodied in the 1st Amendment. I did not swear to defend
religion or Christianity. I swore to defend America and Americans of
every manner.
[SEE:]
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm
Here is the analysis of : [Name and city deleted for privacy]
Scotland, Occupation: Physician Interests: Science in general,
neuroscience, religion Basic Beliefs: Atheist, Naturalist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The American Pledge of Allegiance, mandatory in American schools
is 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."
See the contradiction they created when President Eisenhower
in 1954 added "under God."
First: If America is "under God" that implies exclusion of those
who are not under God, Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Ignostics,
polytheists (Hindus, Pagans, Wiccans).
Secondly: If those not under God are excluded, then America is
not ONE NATION. It is two nations, a Theistic/Christian Nation, and a
non-Theistic nation of second class subjects (not citizens.)
Thirdly: If those not under God are excluded, then America is not
indivisible. It is purposefully divisible into the ruling class of
Theists and the subject class of non-theists.
Fourthly: If those not under God are excluded, then America
cannot possibly give liberty and justice for all. It must give and does
already give more freedom and liberty to Theists, really to Christians
than to non-Christians. Christians can put Christmas Creches on State
lands, the Christian 10 Commandments can be posted in Schools and court
houses. In that atmosphere an Atheist cannot expect equal justice.
Solution: Either drop the "Under God" and restore the original
pledge that was not self-contradictory. Or to be fair and just, add in
place of "under God" this revision, "under one God, many Gods, or no
gods" with liberty and justice for all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The argument that the word "God" does not "establish" a
religion is, and always has been, a canard defended by a specific group
of "Christian" faith believers in this country. To help people to
understand this, merely use "under Allah" in our pledge and see if
Congress would insert it into the Pledge. The "God" referred to in our
Pledge and National Motto is the Christian God. How can anyone with
integrity attempt to deny that? If they do, then they are actually
minimizing their own supernatural deity.
These are my personal opinions and views. I love this country
because it is a multi-cultural, pluralistic, secular, federal republic
where the expression of "individual" conscience "was" protected by the
Constitution from interference or intimidation by the Government. I could
not swear an oath to defend a Christian Taliban America...and that is
exactly what many are claiming that it is...a "Christian Nation," under a
Christian supernatural god.
Sincerely,
Glen P. Goffin
PS: I loved Red Skelton; but he did not craft our Constitution.
Just think how lucky he was, and the rest of us are, that we had/have a
right to express our spiritual conscience in whatever manner we wish
without fear of Government intrusion like we see in so many other
countries throughout the world. We survived and prospered before being
unconstitutionally placed "under" the Christian God. We will once again
be a nation of moral and ethical, as well as legal, principles when
religion is separated from our government and true, not religiously
qualified, patriotism.
[E mail received from Glen P. Goffin, July 1, 2002]
=========================================================
>:|
>:|Nor does the First Amendment's Establishment
>:|Clause forbid any level of government in the USA from
>:|requiring that children attending government schools
>:|recite the Pledge.
The USSC ruled that children cannot be required to recite the pledge many
years ago.
The latest ruling by a Federal Circuit Court had nothing to do with the
pledge per se, it had to do with a couple words in that Pledge.
>:|"He who pays the piper, calls the tune,"
>:|as it was written in a US Supreme Court majority opinion
>:|as recently as the 1990s.
Gee, I don't see any cite for this so called majority opinion.
jal...@cox.net
>:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
>:|
>:|Rich Soyack
That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capapble of refuting that which I
have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is cal lee
defaulting.
In fact, you haven't been able to refute anyone who has posted facts, etc
in replies to you.
Now, about slanted. You aren't in any way slanted, huh? Yea, right!!!!!!
Rich Soyack
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hssbnu8dhs4msi563...@4ax.com...
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
> >:|
> >:|Rich Soyack
>
> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capapble of refuting that which I
> have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is cal lee
> defaulting.
Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
>
> In fact, you haven't been able to refute anyone who has posted facts, etc
> in replies to you.
Sure I have. The fools who think that the 9th Circuits stayed decision on
the Newdow
Case is in effect have been corrected.
>
>
> Now, about slanted. You aren't in any way slanted, huh? Yea, right!!!!!!
>
You pretend to be giving facts. Thanks for finally admitting that you are
presented
nothing more than your slanted view.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|news:hssbnu8dhs4msi563...@4ax.com...
>:|> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Rich Soyack
>:|>
>:|> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capable of refuting that which I
>:|> have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is called
>:|> defaulting.
>:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
(1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
(2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
>:|
>:|>
>:|> In fact, you haven't been able to refute anyone who has posted facts, etc
>:|> in replies to you.
>:|
>:|Sure I have. The fools who think that the 9th Circuits stayed decision on
>:|the Newdow Case is in effect have been corrected.
The above doesn't even make sense.
>:|> Now, about slanted. You aren't in any way slanted, huh? Yea, right!!!!!!
>:|>
>:|
>:|You pretend to be giving facts. Thanks for finally admitting that you are
>:|presented nothing more than your slanted view.
I see you like to put words into others mouth. Nice try, too bad it doesn't
float.
Here are some facts you keep dodging:
Facts and other things.
Now, you can dodge till the cows come home, you can label them anything you
wish to label them, it doesn't matter. Your opinions, your spins are
irrelevant.
The audience isn't those who already agree with either of us. The audience
is those who are undecided, or don't have an opinion.
Prove anything to you, totally unnecessary and probably impossible. You
aren't nor have you ever been the audience I post material for.
I love it when you and those like you default with corny impotent excuses.
The real audience will not be very impressed with such excuses. even less
so when one of the parties does present a wealth of evidence that supports
their position. Your corny impotent excuses won't match up very well to
that.
The real audience is those lurkers who may read this today, or tomorrow or
next week, etc.
Google is banking on people having any interest in this stuff over years to
come. They are banking on that, spending money thinking that is going to be
the case and achieving the things that appeal in usenet newsgroups for five
or more years
So the real audience potentially will be those that are her today,
tomorrow, next month, six months from now, a year from now, several years
from now, etc.
Thus, I don't mind your defaulting, in fact I welcome it.
NOW:
==========================================
What does the Federalist papers say about religion?
What did Madison say:
Study Guide for Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd1.htm
A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm
Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm
Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm
The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
Duche's Letter To Washington
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/duche.htm
Representative Tucker on the Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
James Madison, a man who knew a thing or two about what was and wasn't
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison's Arguments Against Special Religious Sanction of American
Government (1792)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm
Study Guide to the Pledge of Allegience
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd6.htm
Rich Soyack
news:ggecnu8nuu7evhokp...@4ax.com...
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >:|news:hssbnu8dhs4msi563...@4ax.com...
> >:|> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >:|> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|Rich Soyack
> >:|>
> >:|> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capable of refuting that
which I
> >:|> have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is called
> >:|> defaulting.
>
> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
>
> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
Unless
you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in effect.
Rich Soyack
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ggecnu8nuu7evhokp...@4ax.com...
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >:|news:hssbnu8dhs4msi563...@4ax.com...
> >:|> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >:|> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|Rich Soyack
> >:|>
> >:|> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capable of refuting that
which I
> >:|> have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is called
> >:|> defaulting.
>
> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
>
> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
Really, where is this decision in effect?
>
> >:|
> >:|>
> >:|> In fact, you haven't been able to refute anyone who has posted facts,
etc
> >:|> in replies to you.
> >:|
> >:|Sure I have. The fools who think that the 9th Circuits stayed decision
on
> >:|the Newdow Case is in effect have been corrected.
>
>
> The above doesn't even make sense.
Sure it does.
>
> >:|> Now, about slanted. You aren't in any way slanted, huh? Yea,
right!!!!!!
> >:|>
> >:|
> >:|You pretend to be giving facts. Thanks for finally admitting that you
are
> >:|presented nothing more than your slanted view.
>
> I see you like to put words into others mouth. Nice try, too bad it
doesn't
> float.
Sure it does.
Rich Soyack
<I cut your usual slanted bullshit>
Bob LeChevalier
>> Now, about slanted. You aren't in any way slanted, huh? Yea, right!!!!!!
>
>You pretend to be giving facts. Thanks for finally admitting that you are
>presented nothing more than your slanted view.
My opinion:
Sure jalison's postings are slanted. But they are not merely his
"opinion". They are the *facts*, presented in such a way as to make
his view of the facts seem reasonable. If he omitted a fact or
erroneously stated a fact, then his presentation is flawed, but if his
theory includes and explains *all* of the facts, then it is an
acceptable theory, and one who disagrees with it is obligated to come
up with a different theory which explains *all* of the facts. (This
would seem to me like a sound basis for legal argument; if instead you
want political argument, well that tends to be based on ideology with
only facts amenable to the ideology being accepted, and tends to be
effective only insofar as you can convince the other party to accept
your ideological assumptions).
While I'm never sure that I'm convinced of the validity of jalison's
theories, I am reasonably sure that he has his facts correct; I am
likewise sure that he quotes the Founders correctly. Thus an opposing
argument either has to analyze all the facts and quotes to get a
different answer, or it has to ideologically assume that some of the
quotes or facts do not matter since they are not ideologically (i.e.
politically) correct.
lojbab
jal...@cox.net
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|news:ggecnu8nuu7evhokp...@4ax.com...
>:|> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|> >:|news:hssbnu8dhs4msi563...@4ax.com...
>:|> >:|> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|Rich Soyack
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capable of refuting that
>:|which I
>:|> >:|> have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is called
>:|> >:|> defaulting.
>:|>
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
>:|>
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
>:|
>:|And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
>:|Unless
>:|you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in effect.
I recall, once upon a time a Federal judge in Cleveland, Ohio issuing a
ruling. A short time later he issued a stay on that ruling.
Can you say Zelman v. Simmons-Harris?
Does that help you understand the probable process here?
************************************************************
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
It is noted that you once more had nothing of substance to say with regards
to the pledge item or the historical information.
That is par for the course.
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|>
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
>:|>
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
>:|
>:|Really, where is this decision in effect?
Ahhh, the usual game playing.
Does a court ruling have to be in effect to exist?
Does the stay cancel the ruling? (hint, no it doesn't)
Thus a federal court has ruled that "under God in the Pledge violates the
Establishment clause and no other higher court has overturned that ruling.
Now you an play word games or any other game you might like to play to try
and downplay that but the fact remains that a court did make that ruling
and that ruling has not been reversed, overturned, etc.
That ruling exists.
Rich Soyack
news:1guenukgbf9int5n7...@4ax.com...
So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed decision.
All you are
able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your hands.
Rich Soyack
Rich Soyack
news:dluenucaonr2f9urv...@4ax.com...
The ruling has no effect. It has been stayed.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed decision.
>:|All you are
>:|able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your hands.
=========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
>:|> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> Now for another viewpoint, by a person probably far more qualified than
>:|the above is (since the person in question is a lawyer, and is intimately
>:|>involved in this case and has one victory already, i.e.
>:|> "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
>:|> courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
>:|> Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)"
>:|> SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
>:|> Columbia. Newdow v. Eagen, [Congressional Chaplains] section J. INJURY
>:|IN FACT TO PLAINTIFF - PERSONAL REPROACH page 16
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|So, tell me, in what jurisdiction is the 9th Ciruits Stayed decision in
>:|effect?
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
Ho hum, seems we are stuck in a rut.
Your point, that you think means something, is meaningless, but it appeals
to you, it appears. It is also noted that you have not refuted anything
offered but instead elected to try and plant a strawman in the corn field
to distract.
-------- ------- -------
Stay, n. A stopping; the act of arresting a judicial proceeding by the
order of a court. Also that which holds, restrains, or supports.
A stay is a suspension of the case or some designated proceedings within
it. It is a kind of injunction with which a court freezes its proceedings
at a particular point. It can be used to stop the prosecution of the action
altogether, or to hold up only some phase of it, such as an execution about
to be levied on a judgment.
Stay of proceedings. The temporary suspension of the regular order of
proceedings in a cause, by direction or order of the court, usually to
await the action of one of the parties in regard to some omitted step or
some act which the court has required him to perform as incidental to the
suit; as where a nonresident plaintiff has been ruled to give security for
costs. It is similar to an injunction with which a court freezes its
proceedings at a particular point. It can be used to stop the prosecution
of the action altogether, or to hold up only some phase of it, such as an
execution about to be levied on a judgment. See also Automatic stay.
[NOTE:]
A "stay" does not reverse, annul, undo or suspend what already had been
done or what is not specifically stayed nor pass on the merits of orders of
the trial court, but merely suspends the time required for performance of
the particular mandates stayed, to preserve a status quo pending appeal.
See Fed.R.Civil P. 62, "Stay of Proceedings to Enforce Judgment". See also
Injunction; Restraining order.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing Company, (1991) pp. 983-84
==================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|Really, where is this decision in effect?
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
Ahhh, the usual game playing.
Does a court ruling have to be in effect to exist?
Does the stay cancel the ruling? (hint, no it doesn't)
Thus a federal court has ruled that "under God in the Pledge violates the
Establishment clause and no other higher court has overturned that ruling.
Now you an play word games or any other game you might like to play to try
and downplay that but the fact remains that a court did make that ruling
and that ruling has not been reversed, overturned, etc.
That ruling exists.
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> >:|> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capable of refuting that
>:|which I have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is called
>:|> >:|> defaulting.
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
>:|Unless
>:|you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in effect.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
I recall, once upon a time a Federal judge in Cleveland, Ohio issuing a
ruling. A short time later he issued a stay on that ruling.
Can you say Zelman v. Simmons-Harris?
Does that help you understand the probable process here?
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
=========================================================
jal...@cox.net
>:|The ruling has no effect. It has been stayed.
=======================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
>:|> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> Now for another viewpoint, by a person probably far more qualified than
>:|the above is (since the person in question is a lawyer, and is intimately
>:|>involved in this case and has one victory already, i.e.
>:|> "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
>:|> courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
>:|> Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)"
>:|> SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|Really, where is this decision in effect?
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
Ahhh, the usual game playing.
Does a court ruling have to be in effect to exist?
Does the stay cancel the ruling? (hint, no it doesn't)
Thus a federal court has ruled that "under God in the Pledge violates the
Establishment clause and no other higher court has overturned that ruling.
Now you an play word games or any other game you might like to play to try
and downplay that but the fact remains that a court did make that ruling
and that ruling has not been reversed, overturned, etc.
That ruling exists.
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> >:|> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capable of refuting that
>:|which I have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is called
>:|> >:|> defaulting.
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
>:|Unless
>:|you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in effect.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
I recall, once upon a time a Federal judge in Cleveland, Ohio issuing a
ruling. A short time later he issued a stay on that ruling.
Can you say Zelman v. Simmons-Harris?
Does that help you understand the probable process here?
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
=========================================================
Rich Soyack
changed. It has not.
Rich Soyack
Nemesis
> <jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely
stayed
> > > >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been
written.
> > I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
> > not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have
a
> > review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until
a
> > likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
> > It is noted that you once more had nothing of substance to say with
regards
> > to the pledge item or the historical information. That is par for the
course.
> So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed
decision. All you are
> able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your hands.
He seems to have magical thinking that the "decision" is in a different
place than it is. The place it is at legally is what under Robert's Rules of
Order could best describe as a motion that has been "tabled." If the whole
court doesn't act before the end of its current session the thing dies with
no further action. It's dead. While there is a chance it will be yanked off
the table, the word around the courthouse has been that they have no real
stomach to have this one hit the fast track before the Supremes and get
another tongue lashing from Washington. Newdow isn't bright enough to
realize that the present SCOTUS is unlikely to see the issues in his
dogmatic view. Can't blame him for wishing though.
J.M. Ivler
> The First Amendment, therefore, does not forbid and
> level of government in the USA from adding the phrase
> "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, since that
> is not a "religious institution" but merely a religious
> sentiment.
Actually it is State sponsorship of monotheism. Which is just what the
court originally decided.
TGO
"J.M. Ivler" <iv...@basecamp1.netquest.net> wrote in message
news:qRVd9.6125$Ie6.932@fe02...
But monotheism isn't unique to any one religion.
jal...@cox.net
["Rich Soyack" wrote]
Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely
stayed there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been
written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have
a review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
in the reply above
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
It is noted that you once more had nothing of substance to say with
regards to the pledge item or the historical information. That is par for
the course.
["Rich Soyack" wrote]
So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed
decision. All you are able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your
hands.
["Nemesis" wrote:]
He seems to have magical thinking that the "decision" is in a different
place than it is. The place it is at legally is what under Robert's Rules
of Order could best describe as a motion that has been "tabled." If the
whole court doesn't act before the end of its current session the thing
dies with no further action. It's dead. While there is a chance it will be
yanked off the table, the word around the courthouse has been that they
have no real stomach to have this one hit the fast track before the
Supremes and get another tongue lashing from Washington. Newdow isn't
bright enough to realize that the present SCOTUS is unlikely to see the
issues in his dogmatic view. Can't blame him for wishing though.
[M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
The idea that they're going to simply let this languish is absurd. Courts
are not legislatures ... they don't "table" cases. Cases have to be
decided. There certainly are a number of procedures that are available to
the Ninth Circuit, and I clearly may end up losing. But it won't be
because the Court simply decided not to act.
And, meanwhile, my side is still winning. The decision has been stayed, but
it's still the decision.--M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in
reply to the above
==========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
>:|> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> Now for another viewpoint, by a person probably far more qualified than
>:|the above is (since the person in question is a lawyer, and is intimately
>:|>involved in this case and has one victory already, i.e.
>:|> "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
>:|> courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
>:|> Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)"
>:|> SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|Really, where is this decision in effect?
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
Ahhh, the usual game playing.
Does a court ruling have to be in effect to exist?
Does the stay cancel the ruling? (hint, no it doesn't)
Thus a federal court has ruled that "under God in the Pledge violates the
Establishment clause and no other higher court has overturned that ruling.
Now you an play word games or any other game you might like to play to try
and downplay that but the fact remains that a court did make that ruling
and that ruling has not been reversed, overturned, etc.
That ruling exists.
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> >:|> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capable of refuting that
>:|which I have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is called
>:|> >:|> defaulting.
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
>:|Unless
>:|you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in effect.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
I recall, once upon a time a Federal judge in Cleveland, Ohio issuing a
ruling. A short time later he issued a stay on that ruling.
Can you say Zelman v. Simmons-Harris?
Does that help you understand the probable process here?
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
=========================================================
Rich Soyack
has changed. The Stayed decision has had no effect of the way
people go about their lives and the way the Pledge is recited in schools.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
["Rich Soyack" wrote]
Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely
stayed there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been
written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have
a review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
in the reply above
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
It is noted that you once more had nothing of substance to say with
regards to the pledge item or the historical information. That is par for
the course.
["Rich Soyack" wrote]
So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed
decision. All you are able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your
hands.
["Nemesis" wrote:]
He seems to have magical thinking that the "decision" is in a different
place than it is. The place it is at legally is what under Robert's Rules
of Order could best describe as a motion that has been "tabled." If the
whole court doesn't act before the end of its current session the thing
dies with no further action. It's dead. While there is a chance it will be
yanked off the table, the word around the courthouse has been that they
have no real stomach to have this one hit the fast track before the
Supremes and get another tongue lashing from Washington. Newdow isn't
bright enough to realize that the present SCOTUS is unlikely to see the
issues in his dogmatic view. Can't blame him for wishing though.
[M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
The idea that they're going to simply let this languish is absurd. Courts
are not legislatures ... they don't "table" cases. Cases have to be
decided. There certainly are a number of procedures that are available to
the Ninth Circuit, and I clearly may end up losing. But it won't be
because the Court simply decided not to act.
And, meanwhile, my side is still winning. The decision has been stayed, but
it's still the decision.--M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in
reply to the above
==========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
>:|> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> Now for another viewpoint, by a person probably far more qualified than
>:|the above is (since the person in question is a lawyer, and is intimately
>:|>involved in this case and has one victory already, i.e.
>:|> "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
>:|> courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
>:|> Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)"
>:|> SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|Really, where is this decision in effect?
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
Ahhh, the usual game playing.
Does a court ruling have to be in effect to exist?
Does the stay cancel the ruling? (hint, no it doesn't)
Thus a federal court has ruled that "under God in the Pledge violates the
Establishment clause and no other higher court has overturned that ruling.
Now you an play word games or any other game you might like to play to try
and downplay that but the fact remains that a court did make that ruling
and that ruling has not been reversed, overturned, etc.
That ruling exists.
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> >:|> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capable of refuting that
>:|which I have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is called
>:|> >:|> defaulting.
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
>:|Unless
>:|you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in effect.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
I recall, once upon a time a Federal judge in Cleveland, Ohio issuing a
ruling. A short time later he issued a stay on that ruling.
Can you say Zelman v. Simmons-Harris?
Does that help you understand the probable process here?
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
=========================================================
J.M. Ivler
> But monotheism isn't unique to any one religion.
No, it is the promotion of SOME religions over others. And the government
isn't allowed to do that. :-) There are athiests, agnostics, wiccans,
Hindu, Buddhists and many others who pay taxes to the government, are
citizens of the State and deserve to have their beliefs respected equally
(or disrespected equally as the case may be).
Please read what the court said. The government (State) can not support
any one belief (or non-belief) system over any other. It must remain
agnostic and not take any position in respect to one, many or no G-d(s).
jal...@cox.net
>:|jalison, as usual, provides lots of words on an issue in which nothing
>:|has changed. The Stayed decision has had no effect of the way
>:|people go about their lives and the way the Pledge is recited in schools.
>:|
>:|Rich Soyack
>:|
Strawman!
The sound bite expert continues displying his lack of understanding:
ONE MORE WEIGHS IN:
================================================
To Rich Soyack and Nemesis
[Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
Nemesis 9-6-02 in a email to this poster jalison]
This is just like desegregation - the rednecks are again saying "The courts
issued the ruling, let them try to enforce it." Which redneck politico
will try to block the schoolhouse door this time?
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 41 seems to support Newdow and
contradict the others. Rule 41 creates the "mandate" which is the court's
final decision, consisting of the judgment, the opinion, and any decision
about costs. The mandate is effective when issued. The mandate "must
issue" 7 days after a motion for rehearing is denied (which could, but
probably won't, happen here.) Assuming the enbanc circuit takes the case,
their judgment, opinion, and costs decision becomes the mandate. If the
Supreme Court later takes the case, their judgment, opinion, and costs
decision becomes the mandate. Either the motion to rehear en banc is
granted, or is denied. In either case, a mandate exists, and release of
the mandate is, as the name implies, mandatory. I don't see any provision
for the mandate to simply expire. Fed.R.App.Proc. 41(b); (c)(1), and
(c)(2) (West, 2002). The Advisory Committee Notes to the rule state that
"Because the filing of a petition for rehearing en banc will stay the
mandate, a court of appeals will need to take final action on the
petition[.]" I take "will need to take action on the petition" to mean
that the petition does not simply expire if not heard this session.
Those who think otherwise should do some research and correct me - please
cite your sources.
The commentors may want to read the entire first amendment, which
guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
I don't think it would comply with that amendment if you could petition,
get a favorable decision, yet have the government "pocket veto" the
decision. If the decision has been somehow "tabled" then Newdow can make a
motion to ask the court to issue it. Despite the desire of the ignorant to
have the issue just go away, that doesn't happen to federal court
decisions. And anyone who thinks the SCOTUS is a shoo-in should read Lee
v. Weisman and Santa Fe v. Doe, in which the Kennedy and O'Connor (and of
course the four "liberals") found violations of the establishment clause in
optional, but state-sponsored, non-denominational prayer recitations at
graduations and football games. They should also pay attention to the thin
legal reasoning of the 9th Circuit dissent. Judge Fernandez avoided the
legal issues because they don't cut his way.
[Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
Nemesis 9-6-02 in a email to this poster jalison]
****************************************************
Rich Soyack
news:8jthnu0uigg6pkepm...@4ax.com...
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >:|jalison, as usual, provides lots of words on an issue in which nothing
> >:|has changed. The Stayed decision has had no effect of the way
> >:|people go about their lives and the way the Pledge is recited in
schools.
> >:|
> >:|Rich Soyack
> >:|
>
> Strawman!
> The sound bite expert continues displying his lack of understanding:
> ONE MORE WEIGHS IN:
> ================================================
> To Rich Soyack and Nemesis
>
> [Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
> Nemesis 9-6-02 in a email to this poster jalison]
> This is just like desegregation - the rednecks are again saying "The
courts
> issued the ruling, let them try to enforce it." Which redneck politico
> will try to block the schoolhouse door this time?
Nope, the courts did not issue a ruling. Please, don't try to fend off
phony emails.
If this person is, in fact, for real let them post for themselves.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
Phony emails? You are a trip. Let me assure you, they are not phony
emails.
But, I guess you have to try something.
BTW readers, do note that neither of these two (Rich Soyack and Nemesis)
provide anything beyond they say.
This is the proper response to They say:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers can decide who is providing the "BEEF" and who is providing straw:
================================================
To Rich Soyack and Nemesis:
-----------------------------------------------
[Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
Nemesis 9-6-02 in a email to this poster jalison]
This is just like desegregation - the rednecks are again saying "The courts
issued the ruling, let them try to enforce it." Which redneck politico
will try to block the schoolhouse door this time?
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 41 seems to support Newdow and
[Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
Nemesis 9-6-02 in a email to this poster jalison]
****************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote]
Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely
stayed there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been
written.
----------------------------------
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have
a review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
in the reply above
-----------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
It is noted that you once more had nothing of substance to say with
regards to the pledge item or the historical information. That is par for
the course.
---------------------------------------------
["Rich Soyack" wrote]
So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed
decision. All you are able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your
hands.
--------------------------------------------
["Nemesis" wrote:]
He seems to have magical thinking that the "decision" is in a different
place than it is. The place it is at legally is what under Robert's Rules
of Order could best describe as a motion that has been "tabled." If the
whole court doesn't act before the end of its current session the thing
dies with no further action. It's dead. While there is a chance it will be
yanked off the table, the word around the courthouse has been that they
have no real stomach to have this one hit the fast track before the
Supremes and get another tongue lashing from Washington. Newdow isn't
bright enough to realize that the present SCOTUS is unlikely to see the
issues in his dogmatic view. Can't blame him for wishing though.
-------------------------------------------------------------
[M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
The idea that they're going to simply let this languish is absurd. Courts
are not legislatures ... they don't "table" cases. Cases have to be
decided. There certainly are a number of procedures that are available to
the Ninth Circuit, and I clearly may end up losing. But it won't be
because the Court simply decided not to act.
And, meanwhile, my side is still winning. The decision has been stayed, but
it's still the decision.--M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in
reply to the above
==========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
>:|> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
------------------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> Now for another viewpoint, by a person probably far more qualified than
>:|the above is (since the person in question is a lawyer, and is intimately
>:|>involved in this case and has one victory already, i.e.
>:|> "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
>:|> courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
>:|> Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)"
>:|> SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
>:|> Columbia. Newdow v. Eagen, [Congressional Chaplains] section J. INJURY
>:|IN FACT TO PLAINTIFF - PERSONAL REPROACH page 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|So, tell me, in what jurisdiction is the 9th Ciruits Stayed decision in
>:|effect?
------------------------------------------------------------
[M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
It's a process, and the process isn't yet complete. Might I end up losing,
with the Pledge remaining unchanged throughout the land since 1954?
Absolutely. But - at this moment - the process portends a situation where
it will be changed in the 9th Circuit.
And the legal arguments portend a situation where it will be changed in the
United States.
[M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
----------------------------------------------------------
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|Really, where is this decision in effect?
--------------------------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
Ahhh, the usual game playing.
Does a court ruling have to be in effect to exist?
Does the stay cancel the ruling? (hint, no it doesn't)
Thus a federal court has ruled that "under God in the Pledge violates the
Establishment clause and no other higher court has overturned that ruling.
Now you an play word games or any other game you might like to play to try
and downplay that but the fact remains that a court did make that ruling
and that ruling has not been reversed, overturned, etc.
That ruling exists.
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
-------------------------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> >:|> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capable of refuting that
>:|which I have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is called
>:|> >:|> defaulting.
---------------------------------------------------------
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
--------------------------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
--------------------------------------------------------
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
>:|Unless you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in effect.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rich Soyack
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8ovhnukne6ucattnr...@4ax.com...
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >:|news:8jthnu0uigg6pkepm...@4ax.com...
> >:|> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|jalison, as usual, provides lots of words on an issue in which
nothing
> >:|> >:|has changed. The Stayed decision has had no effect of the way
> >:|> >:|people go about their lives and the way the Pledge is recited in
> >:|schools.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|Rich Soyack
> >:|> >:|
> >:|>
> >:|> Strawman!
> >:|> The sound bite expert continues displying his lack of understanding:
> >:|> ONE MORE WEIGHS IN:
> >:|> ================================================
> >:|> To Rich Soyack and Nemesis
> >:|>
> >:|> [Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law.
What Bar Associations is Neal J. Blanchett a member of and where is he
located.
Rich Soyack
Cyrakis
<snip>
It is a view of a very verbal minority. Newdow has merely exposed
more
> of the Atheist agenda than has been the public record before now. He has
> stated that he wants scout troops and chapels off military posts, and the
> chaplain corps out of the military completely.
Citation please?
When Newdow was recently interviewed on Hannity and Colmes show on
Fox, he stated that he supported government support of religion for
people who would otherwise be denied their religious freedom.
Specifically, he stated that he supports government providing access
to religious services for prisoners, and people in the military.
> The real agenda that is yet
> to be part of the public discourse is the agenda mast that point. Because
> even among atheists it starts to tend to thin out the ranks of those who wil
> l march as far as the extremists.
Newdow is no extremist, he is a constitutional scholar, and is very
bave for standing up to the bible-thumping christian fanatic trash in
this country.
Christopher A. Lee
So? The Establishment Claus is about generic religion, not a pecific
one.
TGO
no, no, NO! It's not supposed to be "agnostic", it's supposed to be
independent.
TGO
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:efiinucf9i2itg650...@4ax.com...
How so?
walksalone
"TGO" <gobr...@null.com> Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:05:16 -0400
> "J.M. Ivler" <iv...@basecamp1.netquest.net> wrote in message
SNIP
> > > "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, since that
> > > is not a "religious institution" but merely a religious
> > > sentiment.
> > Actually it is State sponsorship of monotheism. Which is just what the
> > court originally decided.
> But monotheism isn't unique to any one religion.
Beyond the followers of the god of Abraham & deitists, which religions
are you aware of that are monotheistc.
Being I study mythology & haven't encountered such[yet], I would
appreciate the answer.
Many thanks in advance
walksalone who has been known to study the scoundrels men call gods &
such
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
"Congress (which now means any level of government) shall make no law
RESPECTING (touching, helping, supporting touching upon, touching, aiding,
hindering, applying to, have to do with, etc) an ESTABLISHMENT
(institution) of RELIGION (any religious sect, society, denomination,
religion), . . . "
>:|
>:|
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|news:8ovhnukne6ucattnr...@4ax.com...
Ahhhhhhhh, the juvenile delinquent is still playing.
Now we are playing strawman.
My comments remain:
============================================
================================================
To Rich Soyack and Nemesis:
Rich Soyack
news:qisjnuolm0kmmue0q...@4ax.com...
No, you presented someone and said he was an attorney at law. My question
is normal.
You didn't answer the question that would take no more than a few seconds of
your time.
Very revealing.
Rich Soyack
<I cut your usual bullshit>
Christopher A. Lee
>> So? The Establishment Clause is about generic religion, not a specific
>> one.
>
>How so?
Read what it says: "establishment of religion" - not "any one
religion", just "religion".
jal...@cox.net
>:|No, you presented someone and said he was an attorney at law. My question
>:|is normal.
>:|You didn't answer the question that would take no more than a few seconds of
>:|your time.
>:|Very revealing.
Your question is irrelevant to me.
I am not interested in your strawman distractions, nor your reframes, nor
any other games you might want to try and play.
I have accomplished that which I set out to accomplish:
Provide the facts to the crap you have been peddling for some time now.
Let's see, my sources have been:
Black's Law Dictionary
Two Attorneys
A replica situation demonstrating how the process works as it follows the
various steps with regards to voucher scheme from Cleveland, Ohio.
Your sources have been:
Duh, you!
========================================
Now let me assemble all that for the lurkers and readers:
FIRST, THE COMMENTS FROM YOU AND
NEMESIS
--------- --------- ---------
(1) ["Rich Soyack" wrote]
Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely
stayed there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been
written.
-----------------------------------------------
(2) ["Rich Soyack" wrote]
So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed
decision. All you are able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your
hands.
--------------------------------------------
(3) ["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
So, tell me, in what jurisdiction is the 9th Ciruits Stayed decision in
effect?
---------------------------------------------
(4) ["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
Unless you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in
effect.
===============================================
["Nemesis" wrote:]
He seems to have magical thinking that the "decision" is in a different
place than it is. The place it is at legally is what under Robert's Rules
of Order could best describe as a motion that has been "tabled." If the
whole court doesn't act before the end of its current session the thing
dies with no further action. It's dead. While there is a chance it will be
yanked off the table, the word around the courthouse has been that they
have no real stomach to have this one hit the fast track before the
Supremes and get another tongue lashing from Washington. Newdow isn't
bright enough to realize that the present SCOTUS is unlikely to see the
issues in his dogmatic view. Can't blame him for wishing though.
===========================================
THE REPLIES:
------- ---------- ---------
(1) FROM BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY:
(2) FROM MYSELF:
(1) Does a court ruling have to be in effect to exist?
Does the stay cancel the ruling? (hint, no it doesn't)
Thus a federal court has ruled that "under God in the Pledge violates the
Establishment clause and no other higher court has overturned that ruling.
Now you an play word games or any other game you might like to play to try
and downplay that but the fact remains that a court did make that ruling
and that ruling has not been reversed, overturned, etc.
That ruling exists.
-------------------------------------
(2) I recall, once upon a time a Federal judge in Cleveland, Ohio issuing a
ruling. A short time later he issued a stay on that ruling.
CAN YOU SAY ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS?
Does that help you understand the probable process here?
----------------------------------------
(3) "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the
federal courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal.
2002)"
SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
Columbia. Newdow v. Eagen, [Congressional Chaplains] section J. INJURY
IN FACT TO PLAINTIFF - PERSONAL REPROACH page 16
============================================
(3) FROM THE FIRST ATTORNEY, M.A. Newdow, in email replies to jalison
[9/4/02-9/6/02] with regards to specific claims made by Soyack and Nemesis.
M.A. Newdow said:
(1) I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether
or not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have
a review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
in the reply above
-----------------------------------------------
(2) The idea that they're going to simply let this languish is absurd.
Courts are not legislatures ... they don't "table" cases. Cases have to be
decided. There certainly are a number of procedures that are available to
the Ninth Circuit, and I clearly may end up losing. But it won't be
because the Court simply decided not to act.
And, meanwhile, my side is still winning. The decision has been stayed, but
it's still the decision.--M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in
reply to the above
------------------------------------------------
(3) It's a process, and the process isn't yet complete. Might I end up
losing, with the Pledge remaining unchanged throughout the land since
1954?
Absolutely. But - at this moment - the process portends a situation where
it will be changed in the 9th Circuit.
And the legal arguments portend a situation where it will be changed in the
United States.
========================================================
(4) FROM THE SECOND ATTORNEY, N. J. Blanchett in email replies to jalison
[9/6/02] with regards to specific claims made by Soyack and Nemesis.
[N. J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
Rich Soyack
news:0dgknu4d8gs9fk0u7...@4ax.com...
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >:|No, you presented someone and said he was an attorney at law. My
question
> >:|is normal.
> >:|You didn't answer the question that would take no more than a few
seconds of
> >:|your time.
> >:|Very revealing.
>
> Your question is irrelevant to me.
You are the one who made a point that the guy is a lawyer. YOu do that you
should
be able to back it up. This has happened before.
> I am not interested in your strawman distractions, nor your reframes, nor
> any other games you might want to try and play.
Gee, everything that gets in your way fits into this, doesn't it. This is
why I don't take
you seriously.
>
> I have accomplished that which I set out to accomplish:
> Provide the facts to the crap you have been peddling for some time now.
>
> Let's see, my sources have been:
> Black's Law Dictionary
> Two Attorneys
> A replica situation demonstrating how the process works as it follows the
> various steps with regards to voucher scheme from Cleveland, Ohio.
>
> Your sources have been:
> Duh, you!
Nope, also law.com and the 9th Circuit's web site. None of which indicate
that
the stayed decision is having any effect in any jurisdiction in the USA.
You are
simply a troll who regurgitates slanted information from special interest
group.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>:|>> Now, about slanted. You aren't in any way slanted, huh? Yea, right!!!!!!
>:|>
>:|>You pretend to be giving facts. Thanks for finally admitting that you are
>:|>presented nothing more than your slanted view.
>:|
>:|My opinion:
>:|
>:|Sure jalison's postings are slanted. But they are not merely his
>:|"opinion". They are the *facts*, presented in such a way as to make
>:|his view of the facts seem reasonable. If he omitted a fact or
>:|erroneously stated a fact, then his presentation is flawed, but if his
>:|theory includes and explains *all* of the facts, then it is an
>:|acceptable theory, and one who disagrees with it is obligated to come
>:|up with a different theory which explains *all* of the facts. (This
>:|would seem to me like a sound basis for legal argument; if instead you
>:|want political argument, well that tends to be based on ideology with
>:|only facts amenable to the ideology being accepted, and tends to be
>:|effective only insofar as you can convince the other party to accept
>:|your ideological assumptions).
>:|
>:|While I'm never sure that I'm convinced of the validity of jalison's
>:|theories, I am reasonably sure that he has his facts correct; I am
>:|likewise sure that he quotes the Founders correctly. Thus an opposing
>:|argument either has to analyze all the facts and quotes to get a
>:|different answer, or it has to ideologically assume that some of the
>:|quotes or facts do not matter since they are not ideologically (i.e.
>:|politically) correct.
>:|
>:|lojbab
That which you outlined above are not the only ways.
There is another. There is a short cut way. I way that says I don't have to
mention everything, show every event, every document, every court case,
every law change, every speech, etc.
One can say, as I have often said:
(1) There is a vast amount of documented historical and legal data that
supports that founders and other Americans who came later wanted religious
freedom, as in the type of religious freedom that strict separation of
church and state can provide.
(2) There is a good deal of documented historical and legal data that
supports that founders and other Americans who came later wanted to
maintain as much as possible the status quo with regards to religion, that
is unions between church and state and support of the Protestant
Christianity.
(3) There are hosts of documented historical and legal data that supporters
and other Americans who came later didn't involve themselves a great deal
in thoughts about church and state, in short is indifferent to strict
separation and/or accommodation of religion.
There is a short cut to all of this, and that short cut is to acknowledge
certain facts:
(1) From the very beginning, first on the state level, then the national
level there were two major camps with regards to church state unions.
There were the conservatives who wished to maintain the status quo, who
felt that such unions had to be maintained. They were willing to abandon
elevating any specific sects or denomination so long as Protestant
Christianity was supported, protected and advanced
There were the "progressives" who saw that religious freedom could not
exist without strict separation.
(2) Those two groups have been fighting over this issue from 1776 and are
still fighting over this issue and will continue fighting over this issue
for a long time to come, probably.
(3) That church state separation, religious freedom for all, i.e. breaking
of unions between church and state, leveling the playing field between all
religions, and non religion as well, was going to be a process that would
take time.
What the progressive founders began, untold millions yet to be born would
have to continue on and finally complete. Those progressive founders gave
directions and pointed in the way to go.
(4) What does history show us about the outcome of this struggle so far?
It shows us that whole there have been setbacks, while they have lost some
battles, over all, the progressives have been winning the war.
(5) Want proof? You can find that proof by doing comparisons.
Read over copies of the original colonial charters for the various
colonies. Compare those with the original state Constitutions. Note changes
with regards to unions between church and state.
Next Compare the original state constitutions to state constitutions every
50 to 70 years from then to now. Note differences with regards to church
state unions.
Read the Federal Constitution, compare it to the state constitutions of
1776 1780 1790 1800 1850, etc. Note how those state constitutions became
more and more like the federal.
Next, compare court cases on the state and federal level with regards to
church state issues as those cases changed from 1790 to 2002.
I can even give you a very in depth cross section of those cases from 1790
to 1920.
What does all this mean? All those unions between church and state that
existed from 1620 to 1776, but didn't exist after 1776. All those unions
that still existed from 1776 to 1880; but didn't exist anymore after 1880.
All those unions between church and state that still existed from 1880 to
1940, but not after 1940. All those unions between church and state that
still existed from 1940 to 2000 but not today didn't happen by accident.
They happened because Americans, those in power and those not in power,
religious and non religious alike wanted it to happen.
This took place because Americans wanted those unions broken. Americans
from all walks of life, across the spectrum of the political spectrum,
religious and non religious. Oh, yes, to be sure, there were Americans that
didn't and there still are Americans that don't want those unions broken,
but the facts show that while they have made noise, won some battles they
have been on the losing side of this struggle overall.
Slanted? Not nearly as slanted as those on the other side. I can offer and
do offer things that support strict separation and things that point
strongly to accommodation. Frequently, my posts do that as does sections of
the web site. I can offer full historical documents knowing that parts are
going to support my position and other parts are going to kick my butt. I
don't have to take the supportive out of the letter and pretend the non
supportive doesn't exist.
Have you ever noticed how most of these screaming slanted, biased, etc
offer little or nothing themselves?
jal...@cox.net
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|news:0dgknu4d8gs9fk0u7...@4ax.com...
>:|> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|No, you presented someone and said he was an attorney at law. My
>:|question
>:|> >:|is normal.
>:|> >:|You didn't answer the question that would take no more than a few
>:|seconds of
>:|> >:|your time.
>:|> >:|Very revealing.
>:|>
>:|> Your question is irrelevant to me.
>:|
>:|You are the one who made a point that the guy is a lawyer. YOu do that you
>:|should
>:|be able to back it up. This has happened before.
>:|
(Grin) You are the one who has said:
(1) ["Rich Soyack" wrote]
Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely
stayed there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been
written.
-----------------------------------------------
(2) ["Rich Soyack" wrote]
So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed
decision. All you are able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your
hands.
--------------------------------------------
(3) ["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
So, tell me, in what jurisdiction is the 9th Ciruits Stayed decision in
effect?
---------------------------------------------
(4) ["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
Unless you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in
effect.
>:|You are the one who said the above things. You do that you
>:|should be able to back it up. This has happened before.
You should follow your own advice.
I see where you constantly side stepped and played games with Steve
Krulick as well. That seems to be the only thing you are capable of doing.
_________________________________________________
You can reply to this and have the last word. The only people you may be
impressing are those who are in your fan club to begin with. You aren't
gonna win very many points with anyone who comes along and doesn't know you
or men but reads only that presented by you and ur buddy and myself.
Those are the only ones I care about.
____________________________________________________
"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>:|No, you presented someone and said he was an attorney at law. My question
>:|is normal.
>:|You didn't answer the question that would take no more than a few seconds of
>:|your time.
>:|Very revealing.
Your question is irrelevant to me.
I am not interested in your strawman distractions, nor your reframes, nor
any other games you might want to try and play.
I have accomplished that which I set out to accomplish:
Provide the facts to the crap you have been peddling for some time now.
Let's see, my sources have been:
Black's Law Dictionary
Two Attorneys
A replica situation demonstrating how the process works as it follows the
various steps with regards to voucher scheme from Cleveland, Ohio.
Your sources have been:
Duh, you!
Nemesis
> > Your sources have been: Duh, you!
> Nope, also law.com and the 9th Circuit's web site. None of which indicate
that
> the stayed decision is having any effect in any jurisdiction in the USA.
You are
> simply a troll who regurgitates slanted information from special interest
group.
It is very simple, although you are wasting your time rich. The decision
is a "non entity" at the moment unless the 9th Circuit take some action of
some kind. The decision has not become "published." What was cited before
was a different case than the instant Newdow case. The case has been
'tabled" to allow the current session to expire with no action, in which
case the case vaporizes legally. The case sits before the full panel which
has not indicated that it will ever hear it. In fact, indications have been
that they will not, and intend to just allow it to die on the table. For the
life of me I don't know why these guys keep trying to use it to prove a
point.
Rich Soyack
the USA.
Rich Soyack
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pemknucs0blotovc8...@4ax.com...
Rich Soyack
I can't, for the life of me, understand what point he is even trying to
make. THe
Stayed decision is not in effect in any jurisdiction in the USA.
Rich Soyack
Jeff Strickland
jurisdiction anywhere.
There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
die. What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional. The only remedies are
either to scrap the entire pledge, or to only take out "under God." Let's
back the truck up a few feet here, if the full court had been around when
the minority panel elected to take arguments, then perhaps the court would
not have even heard the case and dismissed it. If this had happened, then we
would be waiting for a new challenge to the Pledge, but since the minority
panel elected to hear arguments, we are having this discussion today.
Any decision that the circuit courts make can be appealed, therefore there
is an automatic 45 day "cooling off" period to allow appeals to be entered
before the decision takes effect. If an appeal is filed during this period,
then the decision is held up pending a higher court ruling on the matter (we
don't want to get whiplash by enacting decisions then halting them because
of appeals, so we hold all decisions until the appeal time has passed).
Due to the immediate and high volume of public outcry, it was assumed that
an appeal would indeed be filed, so the very judge that made the majority
statement issued a stay of his own decision. If an appeal is filed, then the
high court will get the case. They (the high court) will look at among other
things, the panel that made the original decision. If there is weakness
because the panel is a minority, then this can help the high court to
overturn. If there is strength because the decision came from the full lower
court, then the high court will have strong standing to let it pass
unopposed. Given these two possibilities, I am certain that the minority
panel of the 9th Circuit decided to try and get a position of strength by
getting a favorable ruling from its own full bench before getting its
decision heard by the higher bench. Surely, there are other scenarios, but
these two seem to make the most sense to me.
My prediciton is that the full 9th Circuit will either not hear this case
and dismiss it, or they will hear arguments and decide against it. If
dismissed, the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and if decided
against, then I am not sure if it can be appealed or will die. If this case
passes muster with the 9th, you can be sure there will be appeals. In any
case, I can see this case going before the Supreme Court of the United
States.
I do not think this decision will stand because I do not see the breach of
the Establishment Clause, which seems to be the strength of the argument by
Mr. Newdow, so I expect the Supreme Court to dismiss and not even hear
arguments. The entire argument can, and should be, boiled down to whether or
not the Establishment Clause has been violated. There is no discussion that
I am aware of that seeks to overturn the Establishment Clause, and clearly
this argument will not do that. The argument should be that the
Establishment Clause seeks to draw a line of separation, and that the Pledge
and "under God" crosses that line. I do not think that the line has been
crossed, but I do agree that the line is needed and in fact is drawn in the
right place. I do not see the Pledge as the vehicle to move the line that
the Establishment Clause has drawn.
I am not trained in Constitutional Law, so these are my humble opinions.
They are, however, sutiable for debate.
TGO
<walksalone> wrote in message news:20020907...@mis.configured.host...
"TGO" <gobr...@null.com> Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:05:16 -0400
> "J.M. Ivler" <iv...@basecamp1.netquest.net> wrote in message
SNIP
> > > "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, since that
> > > is not a "religious institution" but merely a religious
> > > sentiment.
> > Actually it is State sponsorship of monotheism. Which is just what the
> > court originally decided.
> But monotheism isn't unique to any one religion.
> Beyond the followers of the god of Abraham & deitists, which religions
> are you aware of that are monotheistc.
There's a whole bunch right there, ie, more than one.
Nemesis
> I can't, for the life of me, understand what point he is even trying to
> make. THe Stayed decision is not in effect in any jurisdiction in the
USA.
I tried to make the point that in a legal sense it is the same as if
those two judges had said nothing. I pointed out that it wasn't "law" and
didn't really exist until it hit the Federal Reporter. He then referenced an
entirely different case of Newdow's that was reported. I think he argues
like the "little brother from hell." When he runs out of rational factual
arguments, he just starts making things up.
Nemesis
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWL...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
news:unl8tbs...@corp.supernews.com...
First, Jeff, Thanks for an entirely rational post.
> I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in any
> jurisdiction anywhere.
> There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
> might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
> die. What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
> 1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional.
(minor correction) Two judges initially decided it of the 3. One has
changed sides. The case could be before the entire 9th Circuit, however, the
chief Judge has decided to allow the case to "die in committee" on the
table. As of the last i saw there was nothing anywhere on the docket for it
to be heard. When the present session ends and there has been no action
taken, the case evaporates legally.
> The only remedies are either to scrap the entire pledge, or to only take
out "under God." Let's
> back the truck up a few feet here, if the full court had been around when
> the minority panel elected to take arguments, then perhaps the court would
> not have even heard the case and dismissed it. If this had happened, then
we
> would be waiting for a new challenge to the Pledge, but since the minority
> panel elected to hear arguments, we are having this discussion today.
There is also the alternative to change nothing.
> Any decision that the circuit courts make can be appealed, therefore there
> is an automatic 45 day "cooling off" period to allow appeals to be entered
> before the decision takes effect. If an appeal is filed during this
period,
> then the decision is held up pending a higher court ruling on the matter
(we
> don't want to get whiplash by enacting decisions then halting them because
> of appeals, so we hold all decisions until the appeal time has passed).
Everyone has appealed, if you didn't know. The "full court" has in
essence "tabled" the decision. It is as if it never happened unless the
court takes further action. Given the political climate, that isn't likely.
Since the 9th Circuit is the most reversed circuit in American history and
the most "admonished" they are not really fired up to take on the Supremes
on this one. They have gotten enough bad press already. They just want the
issue gone.
> Due to the immediate and high volume of public outcry, it was assumed that
> an appeal would indeed be filed, so the very judge that made the majority
> statement issued a stay of his own decision. If an appeal is filed, then
the
> high court will get the case. They (the high court) will look at among
other
> things, the panel that made the original decision. If there is weakness
> because the panel is a minority, then this can help the high court to
> overturn. If there is strength because the decision came from the full
lower
> court, then the high court will have strong standing to let it pass
> unopposed. Given these two possibilities, I am certain that the minority
> panel of the 9th Circuit decided to try and get a position of strength by
> getting a favorable ruling from its own full bench before getting its
> decision heard by the higher bench. Surely, there are other scenarios, but
> these two seem to make the most sense to me.
You obviously missed that both sides appealed.
> My prediciton is that the full 9th Circuit will either not hear this case
> and dismiss it, or they will hear arguments and decide against it. If
> dismissed, the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and if decided
> against, then I am not sure if it can be appealed or will die. If this
case
> passes muster with the 9th, you can be sure there will be appeals. In any
> case, I can see this case going before the Supreme Court of the United
> States.
The 9th Circuit is going to continue to do its best to ignore the case
into the ether.
> I do not think this decision will stand because I do not see the breach of
> the Establishment Clause, which seems to be the strength of the argument
by
> Mr. Newdow, so I expect the Supreme Court to dismiss and not even hear
> arguments. The entire argument can, and should be, boiled down to whether
or
> not the Establishment Clause has been violated. There is no discussion
that
> I am aware of that seeks to overturn the Establishment Clause, and clearly
> this argument will not do that. The argument should be that the
> Establishment Clause seeks to draw a line of separation, and that the
Pledge
> and "under God" crosses that line. I do not think that the line has been
> crossed, but I do agree that the line is needed and in fact is drawn in
the
> right place. I do not see the Pledge as the vehicle to move the line that
> the Establishment Clause has drawn.
I think it is a distracting tempest in a teapot.
> I am not trained in Constitutional Law, so these are my humble opinions.
> They are, however, sutiable for debate.
Well Jeff you may not be a Constitutional scholar but your reasoning
powers are okay.
Rich Soyack
And when I questioned the credentials of the "attorney" he brought in he
called
my behavior "juvenile delinquent" and said I was using a strawman.
Incredible.
Rich Soyack
walksalone
> <walksalone> wrote in message
news:20020907...@mis.configured.host...
> "TGO" <gobr...@null.com> Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:05:16 -0400
> > "J.M. Ivler" <iv...@basecamp1.netquest.net> wrote in message
> >SNIP
> > > > "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, since that
> > > > is not a "religious institution" but merely a religious
> > > > sentiment.
> > > Actually it is State sponsorship of monotheism. Which is just what the
> > > court originally decided.
> > But monotheism isn't unique to any one religion.
> > Beyond the followers of the god of Abraham & deitists, which religions
> > are you aware of that are monotheistc.
> There's a whole bunch right there, ie, more than one.
Let's see, xianity [A bunch of sub sects, one god [4+ actually]'
Islam [at least 2 gods but claim one] , Judaism [Maybe only 1
god, I suspect that to be true], Deitist, 1 no show god.
I appear to fail to understand your concept of many. It seems
anything over 1 is what you call many, whereas I do not do that.
I would expect no less than say, over 10, to be a minimum
qualification
for many.
What I have found is that most religions are polytheistic once they
make it
to the organised stage of evolving their claims for fame.
[I am aware of 4 possible religions beyond those recognised in the US
that may well indeed be monotheistic but lack the data I need to
confirm or
deny that so far].
> Being I study mythology & haven't encountered such[yet], I would
> appreciate the answer.
> Many thanks in advance
walksalone, disappointed again, & used to it.
Thumper
wrote:
>
>"Jeff Strickland" <CRWL...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
>news:unl8tbs...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> First, Jeff, Thanks for an entirely rational post.
>
>> I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in any
>> jurisdiction anywhere.
>
>> There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
>> might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
>> die. What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
>> 1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional.
>
> (minor correction) Two judges initially decided it of the 3. One has
>changed sides.
Cite?
>The case could be before the entire 9th Circuit, however, the
>chief Judge has decided to allow the case to "die in committee" on the
>table.
No such thing as dying in committee.
>As of the last i saw there was nothing anywhere on the docket for it
>to be heard. When the present session ends and there has been no action
>taken, the case evaporates legally.
You are wrong. The judge can lift the stay and it takes effect. The
ruling has not been vacated.
Thumper
Rich Soyack
news:miumnuc0eomnunar6...@4ax.com...
Has the judge lifted the Stay? No.
Rich Soyack
Nemesis
> And when I questioned the credentials of the "attorney" he brought in he
called
> my behavior "juvenile delinquent" and said I was using a strawman.
Incredible.
My comment is this, he brings this alleged "attorney" into the mix who
makes statements of law that are at best "questionable" and when a
reasonable question is asked as to where they practice law not only do you
*not* get a direct answer to a simple question you got attacked. Any *real*
lawyer would not have a problem saying that "my office is in Los Angeles" or
wherever. Which only makes *me* think the "lawyer" is a phony. And I will
until shown otherwise.
Nemesis
> > First, Jeff, Thanks for an entirely rational post.
> >> I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in
any
> >> jurisdiction anywhere.
> >> There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
> >> might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise
let
> >> die. What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2
to
> >> 1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional.
> >
> > (minor correction) Two judges initially decided it of the 3. One has
> >changed sides.
> Cite?
As in a legal cite? There is none, as we have in this case is press
reports about the decision and actions. There has been nothing in the
official journals I am aware of.
> >The case could be before the entire 9th Circuit, however, the
> >chief Judge has decided to allow the case to "die in committee" on the
table.
> No such thing as dying in committee.
Of course there isn't in a court process. But it has the effect of that.
Do you want technical legal terminology, and would you prefer it in Latin?
> >As of the last I saw there was nothing anywhere on the docket for it
> >to be heard. When the present session ends and there has been no action
> >taken, the case evaporates legally.
> You are wrong. The judge can lift the stay and it takes effect. The
> ruling has not been vacated.
Yes, if the chief judge changes the status and they uphold the decision
then it would "take effect." But, maybe you seem not to know that the case
is presently in a legal nomads land. There are no hearings scheduled on it.
Unless something changes one way or another, if the court takes no action
before its current session ends, the decision dies. It does not hold over
until the court reconvenes. It vaporizes.
Rich Soyack
This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being asked where
he
practices to be an attack.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in any
>:|jurisdiction anywhere.
>:|
>:|There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
>:|might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
>:|die.
=========================================================
I have accomplished that which I set out to accomplish:
Provide the facts to the crap you have been peddling for some time now.
Let's see, my sources have been:
Black's Law Dictionary
Two Attorneys
A replica situation demonstrating how the process works as it follows the
various steps with regards to voucher scheme from Cleveland, Ohio.
Your sources have been:
Duh, you!
J.M. Ivler
> no, no, NO! It's not supposed to be "agnostic", it's supposed to be
> independent.
agnostic.
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven
but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The
term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist
Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects
of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning
“without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to
the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian
writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence,
Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term
agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow
intellectuals-"ists",” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various
doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction.
Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,”
Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being
in 1870.
I used the word with a purpose. The government is and should be agnostic.
"one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist" should be the
governments position.
Thumper
wrote:
The chief judge does not have to lift the stay. The judge who issued
the stay can lift it. The reason it is in "nomads" land is because
the court knows that it is unconstitutional and is afraid to hear it.
The decision doesn't die. It has been made and cannot be undone
unless heard and overturned.
Thumper
>
>
Thumper
Well it's really beside the point. Even if the government could know
for a certainty they could have no official opinion. That's what is
particularly vexing about the argument that the founders were or were
not religious, Christian, or anything. It doesn't matter because the
1st amendment says the government must remain neutral.
Thumper
Nemesis
Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was it
Attorney Mumford?
Nemesis
> > Yes, if the chief judge changes the status and they uphold the
decision
> >then it would "take effect." But, maybe you seem not to know that the
case
> >is presently in a legal nomads land. There are no hearings scheduled on
it.
> >Unless something changes one way or another, if the court takes no action
> >before its current session ends, the decision dies. It does not hold over
> >until the court reconvenes. It vaporizes.
> The chief judge does not have to lift the stay. The judge who issued
> the stay can lift it. The reason it is in "nomads" land is because
> the court knows that it is unconstitutional and is afraid to hear it.
> The decision doesn't die. It has been made and cannot be undone
> unless heard and overturned.
They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both sides.
It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be. You
can jump up and down and scream and hold your breath and it doesn't make it
real. You are like a little boy trying to sell me that the tooth fairy is
real by holding up comic books in front of me. A court may make a verbal or
written ruling, and that is nice, but it doesn't become "law" until it is
released for publication. The case is pending review. As a legal matter,
unless the court takes further action the case is dead and it is as if it
never happened except in your desperate little mind. They printed photos of
alien autopsies in the newspapers too, however, they are as real as your
"landmark decision." It hasn't been moved because the 9th Circuit has been
so reversed in the past 10 years that their decisions account for almost
80-% of the reversals the Supreme Court hears. And they have been admonished
for straying so far from the Constitution. They aren't anxious for yet
another public rebuke from the high court. It's dead at the moment, learn to
live with it. And you think Theists believe in superstition. At least they
don't believe in the face of evidence refuting the existence of their God.
Rich Soyack
I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
Rich Soyack
Marc Satterwhite
There is no such thing as an anti "under God" crowd. I am proud member
of the "please don't use my tax dollars to force impressionable children to
participate in religious displays they may not believe in, but won't speak
up about for fear of being ostracized and/or beaten up by the members
of the intolerant majority religion" crowd.
Best, Marc
Carol Lee Smith
> Rich Soyack wrote:
> > This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
> There is no such thing as an anti "under God" crowd.
You are correct. thank you for speaking to that point.
Soyack, in his paranoia, sees things that aren't there and makes claims he
cannot support. But I am sure you don't need to be told that.
> I am proud member
> of the "please don't use my tax dollars to force impressionable children to
> participate in religious displays they may not believe in, but won't speak
> up about for fear of being ostracized and/or beaten up by the members
> of the intolerant majority religion" crowd.
Where can I join up?
Thumper
wrote:
>
>"Thumper" <jayl...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:tp4qnu8isik6rn5ah...@4ax.com...
>
>> > Yes, if the chief judge changes the status and they uphold the
>decision
>> >then it would "take effect." But, maybe you seem not to know that the
>case
>> >is presently in a legal nomads land. There are no hearings scheduled on
>it.
>> >Unless something changes one way or another, if the court takes no action
>> >before its current session ends, the decision dies. It does not hold over
>> >until the court reconvenes. It vaporizes.
>
>> The chief judge does not have to lift the stay. The judge who issued
>> the stay can lift it. The reason it is in "nomads" land is because
>> the court knows that it is unconstitutional and is afraid to hear it.
>> The decision doesn't die. It has been made and cannot be undone
>> unless heard and overturned.
>
> They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
>automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both sides.
>It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
>allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
>decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be.
You are wrong you ass.
>You
>can jump up and down and scream and hold your breath and it doesn't make it
>real. You are like a little boy trying to sell me that the tooth fairy is
>real by holding up comic books in front of me. A court may make a verbal or
>written ruling, and that is nice, but it doesn't become "law" until it is
>released for publication. The case is pending review. As a legal matter,
>unless the court takes further action the case is dead and it is as if it
>never happened except in your desperate little mind. They printed photos of
>alien autopsies in the newspapers too, however, they are as real as your
>"landmark decision." It hasn't been moved because the 9th Circuit has been
>so reversed in the past 10 years that their decisions account for almost
>80-% of the reversals the Supreme Court hears. And they have been admonished
>for straying so far from the Constitution. They aren't anxious for yet
>another public rebuke from the high court. It's dead at the moment, learn to
>live with it. And you think Theists believe in superstition. At least they
>don't believe in the face of evidence refuting the existence of their God.
>
>
The judge can lift his stay at anytime and the decision will take
effect. No amount of your infantile bullshit can change that. You're
too stupid to know that you're showing your ass to the world.
Thumper
>
>
>
jal...@cox.net
>:|I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
>:|
>:|Rich Soyack
>:|
From: Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com>
Organization: © 2002 Kryolux, Inc.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.politics.usa.constitution,milw.general,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Pledge is unconstitutional!
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:11:46 GMT
Rich Soyack wrote:
> Of course, as we all know, the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance
> to the Flag
> is not Unconstitutional in the United State of America.
>
> Rich Soyack
GAHCK! The same blatant assertion of his unsubstantiated
opinion; back to square one!
Guffaw! According to the recent Newdow decision, the 1954 act
that ADDED "under God" to the Pledge IS, of course,
unconstitutional. But Soyack already knew that. Even if he
didn't bother to actually read the entire decision, WE put it in
front of him sufficient times to make THAT point clear, along
with the SCotUS settled case law that forms the basis of
Goodwin's ruling:
Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1947: "The 'establishment of
religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions,
or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church
against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief
in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or
small, can be levied to support any religious activities or
institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they
may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the
Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.
In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation
between Church and State.'" Everson v. Board of Education
(1947).
Black continued: "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a
State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a
person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.'
Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements
which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither
can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of
God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."
Further from the same case: "The Amendment's purpose was not to
strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect,
creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had
prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it
was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader
than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to
create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of
religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively
forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion...
No provision of the Constitution is more closely tied to or
given content by its generating history than the religious
clause of the First Amendment... The history includes not only
Madison's authorship and the proceedings before the First
Congress, but also the long and intensive struggle for religious
freedom in America, more especially in Virginia, of which the
Amendment was the direct culmination... For Madison, as also for
Jefferson, religious freedom was the crux of the struggle for
freedom in general."
In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), Justice Stevens, writing for a 6-3
majority, held that an Alabama statute authorizing a daily
period of silence in public schools violated the Establishment
Clause: "Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain
from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept
of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom
to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to
refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At
one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the
preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not
require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the
atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam
or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined
in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously
concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by
the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious
faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only
from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of
conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs
worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice
by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the
political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond
intolerance among Christian sects—or even intolerance among
"religions"—to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the
uncertain."
The SCOTUS rulings were strictly applied by Goodwin in Newdow:
The 9th Circ said it absolutely clearly:
"In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United
States is a nation "under God" is an endorsement of religion. It
is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in
monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation "under God" is
not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a
deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical
significance of religion in the founding of the Republic.
Rather, the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the
Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the
United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values
for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty,
justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official
Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position
with respect to the purely religious question of the existence
and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation "under
God" is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a
profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under
Vishnu," a nation "under Zeus," or a nation "under no god,"
because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to
religion. "[T]he government must pursue a course of complete
neutrality toward religion." Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60.
Furthermore, the school district's practice of teacher-led
recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect
for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to
state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot be
forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school
district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement
of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to
recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the
Pledge."
When will Soyack respond to these challenges and points?
1)
The decision was written. IT was based on applying the SCotUS
precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made
in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what
parts of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of
the decision you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU
have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
2)
How about this one:
> I don't believe that the two words "under God" in the Pledge establish a
> religion,
More straw. It doesn't HAVE to "establish a religion" to violate
the clause, but merely "respect" an establishment of religion.
Again, you clearly didn't read the decision, or can't comprehend
it, or are just ignoring it. It is an "endorsement" of religion,
and in context of the decision, and all the SCotUS precedents
mentioned, and some not, it is a violation. So again, you
opinion has nothing to do with the actual decision, much less
"disagrees" with it. It sets up a straw decision that wasn't
what Goodwin said. Try showing why you disagree with what was
ACTUALLY decided!
3)
Mind giving the clause that states that "the People can override
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision."?
4)
Have you read MY words at democracy101.org yet
5)
> Newdow first tried it in Florida.
"Tried"? Explain "tried." As Yoda says: "Do or do not. There is
no try."
You mean there was a circuit court decision reached in Florida
that we never heard about involving Newdow? Tell us more. All
that matters IS an actual decision that determines the
constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. Not
dicta. Not try.
6)
> Of the Circuit Courts in the United
> States, I believe 3 have disagreed, in essence, with the 9th Circuit. I
> suggest we wait for outcome.
Oh, there were three other cases in three other circuits where
the "under God" phrase in the Pledge was specifically reviewed
for its constitutionality and they disagreed with Goodwin's
interpretation, ruling that the phrase WAS constitutional and
that the 1954 law WAS constitutional and that a law stipulating
that "giving" the Pledge each morning in school to satisfy
patriotic exercise requirements WAS constitutional? Please
elaborate! I thought the Newdow case was the first to deal
specifically with all this directly, and not just have a passing
dicta with no related decision.
7)
There's more of course, such as you denying that the Const means
what the courts say it means, simply ignoring all my evidence
that argues that it is just so. But you still won't address any
of this first stuff, so why should I bother again?
I'm still waiting for his refutation of all MY evidence that
refutes his claims and straw.
MINSTREL (singing): Brave Rich Soyack ran away
Bravely ran away away
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes Brave Rich Soyack turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Rich Soyack
Packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering off
And chickening out and pissing off home
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...
--
Steven Krulick
s...@krulick.com
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
Larry Smith
LOL! And get stalked real-life by some 2nd Amendment fruitcake like
Soyack?
jal...@cox.net
>:| They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
>:|automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both sides.
>:|It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
>:|allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
>:|decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be. You
>:|can jump up and down and scream and hold your breath and it doesn't make it
>:|real. You are like a little boy trying to sell me that the tooth fairy is
>:|real by holding up comic books in front of me. A court may make a verbal or
>:|written ruling, and that is nice, but it doesn't become "law" until it is
>:|released for publication. The case is pending review. As a legal matter,
>:|unless the court takes further action the case is dead and it is as if it
>:|never happened except in your desperate little mind. They printed photos of
>:|alien autopsies in the newspapers too, however, they are as real as your
>:|"landmark decision." It hasn't been moved because the 9th Circuit has been
>:|so reversed in the past 10 years that their decisions account for almost
>:|80-% of the reversals the Supreme Court hears. And they have been admonished
>:|for straying so far from the Constitution. They aren't anxious for yet
>:|another public rebuke from the high court. It's dead at the moment, learn to
>:|live with it. And you think Theists believe in superstition. At least they
>:|don't believe in the face of evidence refuting the existence of their God.
*********************************************************
From: Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com>
Organization: Š 2002 Kryolux, Inc.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.politics.usa.constitution,uwm.general,milw.general
Subject: Re: The Pledge is not unconstitutional!
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 03:07:41 GMT
Nemesis wrote:
>
> "Steve Krulick" <s...@krulick.com> wrote in message
> news:3D4E97F7...@krulick.com...
>
> > Who cares? I write for the select group of intelligent readers
> > who understand and appreciate the issues and the presentation of
> > relevant and thoughtful evidence. YOU are just a minor
> > annoyance, a buzzing housefly, leaving little turds on the
> > buffet.
>
> > Who cares? I write for the select group of intelligent readers
> > who understand and appreciate the issues and the presentation of
> > relevant and thoughtful evidence.
>
> I am sure you think so.
You don't know what I think. I'm sure of that.
> Those who agree with you are "intelligent"
Some yes, some no. There are intelligent persons who disagree
with me; I've enjoyed debating with them. But they play by the
rules and stick to the issues. Then there's you.
> those
> that think you are a loud mouthed ass, are therefore idiots.
I didn't say that, you did. Putting words in my mouth is rude.
> What you post
> is rampant misinterpretations of often irrelevant documents.
So you blatantly assert. IF you want to be taken seriously, you
would back up those unsubstantiated claims with logic and
evidence. HOW are they misinterpretations (calling them
"rampant" doesn't make them so)? WHY are they irrelevant? If you
keep snipping away the details, only to hand-wave with your
unsupported opinions as an excuse for not dealing with my
arguments, why should anyone take you seriously?
> And you pound
> ever table, every wall, every door
Blah blah blah. More irrelevant and baseless side-stepping.
> that you can with your lengthy diatribes,
The better to inform you with, my dear.
> perceiving yourself to have the ultimate intelligence on Usenet.
Modesty forbids me. But you are obsessed with me to a point of
concern.
> Yet
> relegating yourself by your arguments and lack of understanding of "factual"
> concepts to the role of class dumbass.
Was that a sentence, dumbass? More blatant assertions.
> You still don't quite understand the
> significance of a case not being reported yet you are on your soapbox
> screaming about it.
Screaming? Did you EVER read the main point I've been making?
"Being reported" has no bearing on my question:
The decision was written. IT was based on applying the SCotUS
precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made
in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what
parts of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of
the decision you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU
have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> Since your understanding is so small and you won't even look it up.
Was that a sentence, dumbass?
YOU brought it up, so the burden of argument is on you to
explain it and its relevance to THIS issue. I say it has no
relevance to this issue, as I've put it.
> In
> this case the decision has not been finalized.
It WAS written. IT was based on applying the SCotUS precedents.
That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made in any review
or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what parts of the
settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of the decision
you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU have
consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> It was "withdrawn."
It was "stayed." But it WAS written. IT was based on applying
the SCotUS precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments
will be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my
question about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that
formed the basis of the decision you disagree with and why is
still relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> So it
> isn't law as you incorrectly assume and argue.
Where did I argue THAT? The decision was written. IT was based
on applying the SCotUS precedents. That is unchanged. The same
arguments will be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore,
my question about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that
formed the basis of the decision you disagree with and why is
still relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> It is being reviewed by a
> full 7 judge panel in the 9th Circuit, and they, dear loudmouth, have thus
> far chose to "table the motion."
If so, the decision was STILL written. IT was based on applying
the SCotUS precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments
will be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my
question about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that
formed the basis of the decision you disagree with and why is
still relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> In short the decision as far as "case law"
> goes is dying on the vine at the moment.
I never said Newdow WAS case law; I said it was based on SCotUS
case law precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments will
be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question
about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the
basis of the decision you disagree with and why is still
relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> Even among the Judges on the rather
> funny 9th Circuit this is a hot potato they wish would just go away and they
> are doing their best to try to ignore it into insignificance.
Nonetheless, the decision WAS written. IT was based on applying
the SCotUS precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments
will be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my
question about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that
formed the basis of the decision you disagree with and why is
still relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> So, the point
> is that your "landmark case" has hit the proverbial legal shredder.
Your wishful thinking. The decision was written. IT was based on
applying the SCotUS precedents. That is unchanged. The same
arguments will be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore,
my question about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that
formed the basis of the decision you disagree with and why is
still relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> A
> concept that is beyond a limited understanding and education.
Was that a sentence, dumbass? YOUR blatant assertion of your
unsubstantiated opinion is not beyond understanding; it is just
worthless, that's all, as it is not backed by logic or evidence
or authoritative substantiation.
> But should the
> full panel report it out of committee, there isn't a chance in hell it will
> make it past the SCOTUS.
YOUR blatant assertion of your unsubstantiated opinion. Since IT
was based on applying the SCotUS precedents, the SCotUS would
have to disown their own previous rulings, including the Lemon
test. That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made in any
review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what parts
of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of the
decision you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU
have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> Not the Rehnquist court! But feel free to continue
> your wild gesticulations and table pounding Steve,
Yawn. My even-tempered and measured replies speak for
themselves. Why should anybody take YOUR 100% fact-free ranting
seriously?
> You can be amusing even
> if your points are idiotic.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. YOU haven't even MADE any points, other than to
obsess about me personally. Why don't you PROVE my points are
idiotic? That would be FAR more impressive than just making MORE
blatant assertions.
> It's great watching a clown perform when he
> doesn't know why he's so funny.
Yep, that's why I'm so amused this very moment!
jal...@cox.net
>:| They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
>:|automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both sides.
>:|It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
>:|allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
>:|decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be. You
>:|can jump up and down and scream and hold your breath and it doesn't make it
>:|real. You are like a little boy trying to sell me that the tooth fairy is
>:|real by holding up comic books in front of me. A court may make a verbal or
>:|written ruling, and that is nice, but it doesn't become "law" until it is
>:|released for publication. The case is pending review. As a legal matter,
>:|unless the court takes further action the case is dead and it is as if it
>:|never happened except in your desperate little mind. They printed photos of
>:|alien autopsies in the newspapers too, however, they are as real as your
>:|"landmark decision." It hasn't been moved because the 9th Circuit has been
>:|so reversed in the past 10 years that their decisions account for almost
>:|80-% of the reversals the Supreme Court hears. And they have been admonished
>:|for straying so far from the Constitution. They aren't anxious for yet
>:|another public rebuke from the high court. It's dead at the moment, learn to
>:|live with it. And you think Theists believe in superstition. At least they
>:|don't believe in the face of evidence refuting the existence of their God.
HISTORY OF ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS
WHY?
Because it was a case that was decided by a 3 judge panel of a U.S. Circuit
of Appeals. The judge writing the opinion then stayed the decision. The
process continued as it has to. Eventually the full Circuit Court refused
to hear the case, it was appealed to the USSC where it was finally heard
and decided. The exact same legal process that will, some form or
fashion, take place with Newdow v U S Congress.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Notice the time line involved:
(1) MAY 27, 1999 The Ohio Supreme Court's decision to strike down a
religious school voucher program. The state court ruled today that the
Cleveland program violates a state constitutional provision barring
legislative actions involving more than one subject. But the justices said
the scheme does not violate the church-state separation provisions of the
state or federal constitutions. Simmons-Harris v. Goff, 711 N.E.2d 203
(Ohio 1999) (striking down on procedural grounds voucher program that funds
religious schools, but holding that program did not violate Establishment
Clause) (7 judges unanimous on U.S. Establishment Clause and related Ohio
constitutional provisions; 2 dissents from procedural invalidation): This
was a challenge to a
the Ohio State Supreme Court ruled.
(2) JUNE 1999 the State legislature passed a similar bill
(3) JULY 1999 The plaintiffs then re-filed their Establishment Clause claim
in federal court.
(4) AUGUST 24, 1999, Judge Oliver issued a preliminary injunction, see 54
F. Supp. 2d 725 (N.D. Ohio 1999), finding it likely that the program would
be found to be unconstitutional, and rejecting the defendants' argument
that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion.
(5) AUGUST 27, 1999 Judge Oliver later stayed his ruling insofar as it
applied to students that were already enrolled in the program, See 1999
WL 669222 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 1999) (partial stay);
(6) 528 U.S. 938 (1999) the balance of the decision was later stayed by
the U.S. Supreme Court.(full stay).
(7) FEBRUARY 2001 The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc
(8) MAY 2001 the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of
the case
(9) JUNE 23, 2002 The USSC issued its ruling.
It took from August 1999 to June 2002 for this case to fully work its way
through the courts system. In August 1999 the opinion of the 3 judge panel
of the 6th Circuit of Appeals was stated by one of the judges issuing that
opinion and it so remained till IIRC the start of the following school year
when the USSC stayed it as well. (I will have to go to Regent U to get the
exact date) The full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals never did hear the case,
they refused to do so.
In Newdow v. U S Congress, we are only three or four months into this
process. The claims of Soyack and Nemesis are totally smoke blowing,
totally figments of their imagination given out of (1) ignorance of how the
legal system works, (2) a desire to deceive, (3) fear of the ultimate
outcome.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The decision of the 6th Circuit panel is reported as Simmons-Harris v.
Zelman, 234 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/00a0411p.html
Argued: June 20, 2000 Decided and Filed: December 11, 2000
Before: RYAN, SILER, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JUNE 27, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS, No. 00-1751 (U.S.S.C. June 27, 2002)
A program giving educational choices and aid to certain students
attending both religious and non-religious public and private
schools, enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing
educational assistance to poor children, is one of true "private
choice" and does not offend the First Amendment's Establishment
Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/001751.html
*********************************************
JUNE 26, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWDOW v. US CONGRESS (06/26/02 - No. 00-16423)
The addition of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag (via 1954 federal statute), and a school district policy of
teacher-led daily recitation of the Pledge, with the added words
included, violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
*********************************************
===============================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FINDLAW DAILY OPINION SUMMARIES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
December 11, 2000
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/courts/6th.html
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EDUCATION LAW SIMMONS-HARRIS v. ZELMAN, No 00-3055,
3060, 3063 (6th Cir. December 11, 2000)
Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program school voucher program violates the
Establishment Clause because it does not permit private citizens to direct
government aid freely, but rather restricts choice to religious
institutions and spaces with only a few alternative possibilities.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/00a0411p.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The decision of the federal district court judge is reported as
Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 72 F.Supp. 2d 834 (N.D. Ohio 1999). [Scroll down
to Ohio or use your browsers "Find" feature to locate Ohio.
http://www.au.org/vcases.htm
Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 234 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000) (striking down
voucher program that funds religious schools as violative of the
Establishment Clause), petitions for cert. filed (May 2001): In June 1999,
after the Ohio Supreme Court decision described above, the Ohio legislature
re-enacted the identical program, but did so in a separate bill.
Approximately 3,800 students enrolled in the voucher program for the
1999-2000 school year. The plaintiffs then re-filed their Establishment
Clause claim in federal court in July. On August 24, 1999, Judge Oliver
issued a preliminary injunction, see 54 F. Supp. 2d 725 (N.D. Ohio 1999),
finding it likely that the program would be found to be unconstitutional,
and rejecting the defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' claim was
barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. Judge Oliver later stayed his
ruling insofar as it applied to students that were already enrolled in the
program, and the balance of the decision was later stayed by the U.S.
Supreme Court. See 1999 WL 669222 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 1999) (partial
stay); 528 U.S. 938 (1999) (full stay).
On December 20, 1999, Judge Oliver issued his permanent decision. See 72 F.
Supp.2d 834 (N.D. Ohio 1999). He found the facts to be indistinguishable
from those at issue in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty
v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973), in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck
down a New York State program that provided tuition reimbursement grants to
low-income parents whose children attended private schools, 85% of which
were religious. In the Ohio program, 82% of the participating schools are
sectarian and enroll 85% of the participating students. The court applied
the Lemon test, concluding that the program had a secular purpose but
lacked a secular primary effect. The court also found that the ruling in
Nyquist had not been undermined by subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Upon the consent of the parties, the court's order was stayed in its
entirety pending review by the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit ruled in December 2000 that the voucher program was
unconstitutional. The Court based its findings of advancement and
endorsement of religion on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Nyquist,
which the Sixth Circuit found remains good law. The Circuit relied heavily
on the fact that the program favors sectarian schools over public and other
nonpublic schools because they have lower overhead costs and supplemental
income from private donations, and consequently have lower tuition needs,
which enables them to comply with the $2500 limit on tuition. This fact,
together with the facts that 85% of the participating schools are sectarian
and that no public schools elected to participate in the program, yields a
"limited and restricted palette for parents which is solely caused by state
legislative structuring."
The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc in February 2001,
and the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the case
in May 2001.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The decision of the federal district court judge is reported as
Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 72 F.Supp. 2d 834 (N.D. Ohio 1999). [Scroll down
to Ohio or use your browsers "Find" feature to locate Ohio.
http://www.au.org/vcases.htm
OHIO
Simmons-Harris v. Goff, 711 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio 1999) (striking down on
procedural grounds voucher program that funds religious schools, but
holding that program did not violate Establishment Clause) (7 judges
unanimous on U.S. Establishment Clause and related Ohio constitutional
provisions; 2 dissents from procedural invalidation): This was a challenge
to a program in the Cleveland City School District in which students are
chosen by lot to receive a fixed percentage of the tuition charged by the
alternative school of their choice. Recipients whose family income is below
200% of the federal poverty level receive 90% of the tuition, while those
above this threshold receive 75% of the tuition, and participating private
schools are required to cap tuition at $2500 per student. Students are
allowed to attend any private school within the geographic boundaries of
the district, including parochial schools, that registers for the program,
or public schools in districts adjacent to the Cleveland School District
that elect to register in the program.
Where a recipient has chosen to attend a private school, the state delivers
a check, payable to the recipient's parents, to the school, and the parents
then endorse the check over to the school. Where the recipient has chosen
an adjacent public school, the program calls for the state to issue a check
payable directly to the school.
During the 1996-97 school year, approximately 2,000 scholarships were
awarded, all of them to recipients with families below the poverty line.
80% of the 53 private schools registered to participate in the program were
pervasively sectarian, and no adjacent public school districts chose to
participate. The trial court found that "a majority of the scholarships
will be used by students attending sectarian schools."
In two consolidated lawsuits, plaintiff-taxpayers argued that the program
violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and various
provisions of the Ohio Constitution, and two groups of private schools
intervened. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the Establishment Clause
challenge.
Establishment Clause: The Court applied the Lemon test. The parties had
conceded, and the court agreed, that the purpose of the program is secular,
namely, to provide low-income parents with an opportunity to have their
children educated outside the dysfunctional Cleveland School District. With
respect to the second prong of the test (whether the program has a
principal or primary effect that advances or inhibits religion), the court
found that Establishment Clause law has changed in recent years, such that
the questions to be asked are as follows:
(1) Whether the program results in governmental indoctrination. The court
found this not to be the case because whatever indoctrination takes place
is not done by government, but results from the independent parents' choice
to send their child to a sectarian school.
(2) Whether the program's recipients are defined by reference to religion
or the scheme creates a "financial incentive to undertake religious
indoctrination." The court found this to be the case only with respect to
one of the statutory priority factors that schools are to use in admitting
students, namely, "students whose parents are affiliated with any
organization that provides financial support to the school," which the
court struck down and severed from the statute as unconstitutional. The
court otherwise found that the program does not run afoul of this
requirement.
(3) Whether the program creates an excessive entanglement between
government and religion. The court found that it does not because the money
does not flow directly to the religious schools, and the registration
requirements for participating schools are not onerous.
Ohio Constitutional Provisions: The Court rejected all of the plaintiffs'
claims under the Ohio Constitution, with the exception of the claim under
the "one-subject" clause. The court found this clause to be violated
because the voucher statute was included as a rider on a bill that included
a host of unrelated matters. The court stayed its ruling until the end of
the fiscal year so as not to disrupt the nearly complete school year.
Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 234 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000) (striking down
voucher program that funds religious schools as violative of the
Establishment Clause), petitions for cert. filed (May 2001): In June 1999,
after the Ohio Supreme Court decision described above, the Ohio legislature
re-enacted the identical program, but did so in a separate bill.
Approximately 3,800 students enrolled in the voucher program for the
1999-2000 school year. The plaintiffs then re-filed their Establishment
Clause claim in federal court in July. On August 24, 1999, Judge Oliver
issued a preliminary injunction, see 54 F. Supp. 2d 725 (N.D. Ohio 1999),
finding it likely that the program would be found to be unconstitutional,
and rejecting the defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' claim was
barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. Judge Oliver later stayed his
ruling insofar as it applied to students that were already enrolled in the
program, and the balance of the decision was later stayed by the U.S.
Supreme Court. See 1999 WL 669222 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 1999) (partial
stay); 528 U.S. 938 (1999) (full stay).
On December 20, 1999, Judge Oliver issued his permanent decision. See 72 F.
Supp.2d 834 (N.D. Ohio 1999). He found the facts to be indistinguishable
from those at issue in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty
v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973), in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck
down a New York State program that provided tuition reimbursement grants to
low-income parents whose children attended private schools, 85% of which
were religious. In the Ohio program, 82% of the participating schools are
sectarian and enroll 85% of the participating students. The court applied
the Lemon test, concluding that the program had a secular purpose but
lacked a secular primary effect. The court also found that the ruling in
Nyquist had not been undermined by subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Upon the consent of the parties, the court's order was stayed in its
entirety pending review by the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit ruled in December 2000 that the voucher program was
unconstitutional. The Court based its findings of advancement and
endorsement of religion on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Nyquist,
which the Sixth Circuit found remains good law. The Circuit relied heavily
on the fact that the program favors sectarian schools over public and other
nonpublic schools because they have lower overhead costs and supplemental
income from private donations, and consequently have lower tuition needs,
which enables them to comply with the $2500 limit on tuition. This fact,
together with the facts that 85% of the participating schools are sectarian
and that no public schools elected to participate in the program, yields a
"limited and restricted palette for parents which is solely caused by state
legislative structuring."
The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc in February 2001,
and the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the case
in May 2001.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2000
Americans United for Separation of Church and State Contact: Joseph Conn or
Rob Boston
202-466-3234 202-466-2587 fax
www.au.org
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS REJECTS SCHOOL VOUCHERS
DECISION IS AN 'EARLY CHRISTMAS PRESENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES,' SAYS AU
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down Cleveland's private
religious school voucher program, holding that tax aid to religious schools
violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which helped bring the
lawsuit challenging the program, described the decision as a monumental
victory for religious freedom, public schools and church-state separation.
"This is a great early Christmas present for America's public schools and
our constitutional principles," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of
Americans United. "This means that taxpayer money will not be diverted from
public schools to private religious schools."
A coalition of education and civil liberties groups challenged the
5-year-old Cleveland voucher program in federal court in July 1999. Last
year, U.S. District Court Judge Solomon Oliver ruled against the program,
concluding that public funding of private religious education ran afoul of
the First Amendment's separation of church and state. Today's 2-1 ruling
upholds that decision.
If voucher supporters appeal today's Simmons-Harris v. Zelman ruling, it
would give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to directly address the
voucher issue for the first time.
"If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear an appeal of this case, it would
set the stage for an historic showdown," said AU's Lynn. "This will be the
most important case about public schools and church-state separation in
decades."
Today's decision insisted that the Ohio voucher program "clearly has the
impermissible effect of promoting sectarian schools."
"To approve this program," the court majority ruled, "would approve the
actual diversion of government aid to religious institutions in endorsement
of religious education, something 'in tension' with the precedents of the
Supreme Court."
The court added, "This scheme involves the grant of state aid directly and
predominantly to the coffers of the private, religious schools, and it is
unquestioned that these institutions incorporate religious concepts,
motives, and themes into all facets of their educational planning. There is
no neutral aid when that aid principally flows to religious institutions;
nor is there truly 'private choice' when the available choices resulting
from the program design are predominantly religious."
The 6th Circuit's decision is the latest in a long line of setbacks for
voucher advocates. Last year, another federal appellate court struck down a
voucher-like program in Maine. The State Supreme Courts of Vermont, Maine
and Puerto Rico have also declared voucher programs unconstitutional.
In addition, voucher supporters have been rebuffed repeatedly by voters.
Last month, voters in Michigan and California overwhelmingly defeated
voucher ballot initiatives. Despite massive spending by voucher advocates,
both measures were defeated by better than 2-1 margins. No voucher
referendum put before voters has ever passed.
"Sooner or later, voucher proponents will have to realize that the law is
not on their side -- and neither is public opinion," said Lynn. "Americans
must never be forced to support private religious education, and the
appellate court wisely supported that principle today."
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington,
D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization represents 60,000 members and allied
houses of worship in all 50 states.
____________________________________________
Beth Corbin
National Grassroots Organizer
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
cor...@au.org
AUco...@aol.com
www.au.org
====================================================
jal...@cox.net
>:| They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
>:|automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both sides.
>:|It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
>:|allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
>:|decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be. You
>:|can jump up and down and scream and hold your breath and it doesn't make it
>:|real. You are like a little boy trying to sell me that the tooth fairy is
>:|real by holding up comic books in front of me. A court may make a verbal or
>:|written ruling, and that is nice, but it doesn't become "law" until it is
>:|released for publication. The case is pending review. As a legal matter,
>:|unless the court takes further action the case is dead and it is as if it
>:|never happened except in your desperate little mind. They printed photos of
>:|alien autopsies in the newspapers too, however, they are as real as your
>:|"landmark decision." It hasn't been moved because the 9th Circuit has been
>:|so reversed in the past 10 years that their decisions account for almost
>:|80-% of the reversals the Supreme Court hears. And they have been admonished
>:|for straying so far from the Constitution. They aren't anxious for yet
>:|another public rebuke from the high court. It's dead at the moment, learn to
>:|live with it. And you think Theists believe in superstition. At least they
>:|don't believe in the face of evidence refuting the existence of their God.
************************************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in any
>:|jurisdiction anywhere.
>:|
>:|There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
>:|might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
>:|die.
*************************************************
*********************************************
===============================================
December 11, 2000
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/courts/6th.html
OHIO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________
Beth Corbin
National Grassroots Organizer
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
cor...@au.org
AUco...@aol.com
www.au.org
************************************************
****************************************************
>:|What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
>:|1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional. The only remedies are
>:|either to scrap the entire pledge, or to only take out "under God." Let's
>:|back the truck up a few feet here, if the full court had been around when
>:|the minority panel elected to take arguments, then perhaps the court would
>:|not have even heard the case and dismissed it. If this had happened, then we
>:|would be waiting for a new challenge to the Pledge, but since the minority
>:|panel elected to hear arguments, we are having this discussion today.
When someone literately has to educate you as we go along your credibility
suffers drastically:
Three Judge panels hearing cases are quite common. it is, in part to reduce
the case loads in the courts. The ruling of a 3 judge panel as the same
authority as the full court. Those involved in the case have the same
rights as if the full court had heard the case. They can accept or appeal
the decision.
En bane /an ba'qk/on bogk/. L. Fr. In the bench. Full bench. Refers to a
session where the entire membership of the court will participate in the
decision rather than the regular quorum. In other countries, it is common
for a court to have more members than are usually necessary to hear an
appeal. In the United States, the Circuit Courts of Appeal usually sit in
panels of judges but for important cases may expand the bench to a larger
number, when they are said to be sitting en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 35.
Similarly, only one of the judges of the U.S. Tax Court will typically hear
and decide on a tax controversy. However, when the issues involved are
unusually novel or of wide impact, the case will be heard and decided by
the full court sitting en banc. An appellate court in which all the judges
who are necessary for a quorum are sitting as contrasted with a session of
such court presided over by a single justice or panel of justices.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition,
(1891-1991) West publishing Co. (1991) p. 364
>:|Any decision that the circuit courts make can be appealed, therefore there
>:|is an automatic 45 day "cooling off" period to allow appeals to be entered
>:|before the decision takes effect. If an appeal is filed during this period,
>:|then the decision is held up pending a higher court ruling on the matter (we
>:|don't want to get whiplash by enacting decisions then halting them because
>:|of appeals, so we hold all decisions until the appeal time has passed).
Who is we?
Where exactly are you getting your information?
>:|Due to the immediate and high volume of public outcry, it was assumed that
>:|an appeal would indeed be filed, so the very judge that made the majority
>:|statement issued a stay of his own decision. If an appeal is filed, then the
>:|high court will get the case. They (the high court) will look at among other
>:|things, the panel that made the original decision. If there is weakness
>:|because the panel is a minority, then this can help the high court to
>:|overturn. If there is strength because the decision came from the full lower
>:|court, then the high court will have strong standing to let it pass
>:|unopposed. Given these two possibilities, I am certain that the minority
>:|panel of the 9th Circuit decided to try and get a position of strength by
>:|getting a favorable ruling from its own full bench before getting its
>:|decision heard by the higher bench. Surely, there are other scenarios, but
>:|these two seem to make the most sense to me.
Where is the above coming from. Your personal opinion or some source you
forgot to cite?
>:|My prediciton is that the full 9th Circuit will either not hear this case
>:|and dismiss it, or they will hear arguments and decide against it. If
>:|dismissed, the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and if decided
>:|against, then I am not sure if it can be appealed or will die. If this case
>:|passes muster with the 9th, you can be sure there will be appeals. In any
>:|case, I can see this case going before the Supreme Court of the United
>:|States.
Exactly what legal flaws do you see in the following:
The Decision: There are numerous references to the 1954 law, including a
few quotes from the legislative history.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf.
http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawDeci
sion&cid=1024078906457&t=LawDecision
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What can you offer cites to that counters this: [kindly provide complete
URls and/or documentation]
One (Constitutionally Illiterate) Nation Under God
The Constitution Can't Protect Our Rights If We Don't Understand Them
Jamin B. Raskin is a professor of constitutional law at American University
and director of its Marshall Brennan Fellowship Program.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5966
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What can you offer cites to that counters this: [kindly provide complete
URls and/or documentation]
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:06:48 -0400
To: Billy [deleted for privacy reasons]
From: "Glen P. Goffin" <buf...@sundial.net>
Subject: One American's Opinion
Dear Billy,
Why is it that a doctor from Scotland can see what is wrong with
our current pledge and so many Americans can not? However, the real issue
is whether or not the "Government of the United States" can
constitutionally (legally) legislate "religion " into the official oaths
of our secular federal republic. Here is what James Madison, in Section 3
of his "Memorial and Remonstrance," had to say about this issue:
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish
Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with
the same ease any particular sect of Christianity, in exclusion of all
other Sects?"
Why did the frightened members of those 1950's Congresses
suddenly decide that we needed the protection of a supernatural God?
America had fought and won two world wars and a bloody police action
without having those two words ("under God") in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Why did this same government decide that we must change our national
motto from "E Pluribus Unum" (From many one.) to "In God We Trust?" When I
took my oath as an officer, I did not swear to defend any supernatural
God. I swore to defend the Constitution and the principle of Church-State
separation embodied in the 1st Amendment. I did not swear to defend
religion or Christianity. I swore to defend America and Americans of
every manner.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm
Here is the analysis of : [Name and location deleted for privacy
reasons] Scotland. Occupation: Physician Interests: Science in
general, neuroscience, religion Basic Beliefs: Atheist, Naturalist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The American Pledge of Allegiance, mandatory in American schools
is 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."
See the contradiction they created when President Eisenhauer[Eisenhower]
in 1954 added "under God."
First: If America is "under God" that implies exclusion of those
who are not under God, Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Agnostics,
polytheists (Hindus, Pagans, Wiccans).
Secondly: If those not under God are excluded, then America is
not ONE NATION. It is two nations, a Theistic/Christian Nation, and a
non-Theistic nation of second class subjects (not citizens.)
Thirdly: If those not under God are excluded, then America is not
indivisible. It is purposefully divisible into the ruling class of
Theists and the subject class of non-theists.
Fourthly: If those not under God are excluded, then America
cannot possibly give liberty and justice for all. It must give and does
already give more freedom and liberty to Theists, really to Christians
than to non-Christians. Christians can put Christmas Creches on State
lands, the Christian 10 Commandments can be posted in Schools and court
houses. In that atmosphere an Atheist cannot expect equal justice.
Solution: Either drop the "Under God" and restore the original
pledge that was not self-contradictory. Or to be fair and just, add in
place of "under God" this revision, "under one God, many Gods, or no
gods" with liberty and justice for all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The argument that the word "God" does not "establish" a
religion is, and always has been, a canard defended by a specific group
of "Christian" faith believers in this country. To help people to
understand this, merely use "under Allah" in our pledge and see if
Congress would insert it into the Pledge. The "God" referred to in our
Pledge and National Motto is the Christian God. How can anyone with
integrity attempt to deny that? If they do, then they are actually
minimizing their own supernatural deity.
These are my personal opinions and views. I love this country
because it is a multi-cultural, pluralistic, secular, federal republic
where the expression of "individual" conscience "was" protected by the
Constitution from interference or intimidation by the Government. I could
not swear an oath to defend a Christian Taliban America...and that is
exactly what many are claiming that it is...a "Christian Nation," under a
Christian supernatural god.
Sincerely,
Glen P. Goffin
PS: I loved Red Skelton; but he did not craft our Constitution.
Just think how lucky he was, and the rest of us are, that we had/have a
right to express our spiritual conscience in whatever manner we wish
without fear of Government intrusion like we see in so many other
countries throughout the world. We survived and prospered before being
unconstitutionally placed "under" the Christian God. We will once again
be a nation of moral and ethical, as well as legal, principles when
religion is separated from our government and true, not religiously
qualified, patriotism.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What can you say to this attorney, or what cites can you offer that answers
his question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am looking for a rational critique of the 9th circuit decision striking
down :under god" in the Pledge. I've heard plenty of overheated rhetoric
and attempted character assassination, but no decent critiques of the legal
reasoning behind the opinion. I thought the opinion was relatively
well-reasoned and certainly conformed with the endorsement test line of
cases in the Supreme Court. I am interested in what legal foundation there
is for opposing it - what will the entire 9th circuit and/or Supreme Court
rely on if, as most so-called experts claim, they over-rule the panel.
Have any of the legal journals done anything? I'm a lawyer and all my
conservative friends (?) are reveling in how badly Newdow will lose on
appeal. I can see he might lose if the courts do a great deal of legal
gymnastics, but I don't see a sound basis for overturning the decision.
Let me very clear that I strongly agree with the 9th Circuit
decision, and the rabid reaction to it convinces me that religion is
one of the greatest threats to the American experiment. . .
If we degenerate into state-sponsored religion, we will have failed. . .
I'll look at Marsh v. Chambers, which is the case upholding the Nebraska
Legislature's starting each session with a prayer. I'm really looking for
why the constitutional commentators (except Erwin Chemerinsky at USC Law
School) seem to think the ruling will be overturned. This includes some
allegedly "liberal" scholars like Akhil Amar and Laurence Tribe.
I think the most likely rationale for overturning is that certain
acts just don't rise to the level of "establishment" of religion - that was
the rationale of the 9th Circuit dissent. I think that rationale is wrong
(because it forces government to engage in theological inquiry about which
religious words have "real" or "serious" religious meaning and which
don't). Even if that rationale might apply in some cases, I don't think it
can be applied with regard to >:|the Pledge. As the 9th Circuit showed,
Congress and Eisenhower were dead serious about endorsing religion, and
they thought it was vitally important to begin indoctrinating young minds.
There is absolutely nothing "de minimis" about an act of Congress. I'm
interested intellectually about what kind of legal gymnastics the courts
will do to try to uphold god in the Pledge. I believe that most of the
scholars, and the judges and people in government, have been indoctrinated
so successfully that they just can't wrap their brains around the fact that
"god" in the Pledge is unconstitutional. I wonder if the indoctrination
has been successful enough to make them suspend their legal judgment. I
suspect it has been, but before I level that charge, I want to see if there
are some sound legal arguments that would actually allow Congress to
mandate recitation of religious dogma
. . . I've looked over many of the articles. I still don't see any
legal commentary of how the decision doesn't comport with the previous
cases. If you know of any serious or semi-serious arguments claiming that
the decision is wrong, or doesn't follow Supreme Court precedent, I'd love
to hear about it. My suspicion is nobody will put a decent argument
together, because there isn't one to be made.
I also am not so sure the Supreme Court will overturn the decision.
O'Connor may be the swing vote, and she clearly favors the Endorsement Test
- she authored it and has stood by it despite criticism from Scalia and
others. Kennedy has also adopted the Endorsement Test - I believe he wrote
the opinion using it in Lee v. Weisman. Any reading of that decision
(prohibiting school-sponsored graduation prayers) bolsters the Ninth
Circuit's conclusion that "god" is an endorsement of religion. Ginsburg I
expect to agree, and it would be a change of course for Souter or Breyer to
overturn the 9th Circuit here. It is just barely possible that the Supreme
Court could actually follow their established rules and find 6-3 that the
9th Circuit made the right call. Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist will of
course ignore their duty to follow precedent, ignore their previous
opinions on federalism, and ignore true conservative principles, and will
attempt to create a federal power to compel local schools' recitation of
"god . . . God . . . God . . .god". Good trance music, maybe, but not
constitutional.
The 9th Circuit decision dissent was extraordinarily superficial.
My sense is that the opposition is all smoke and absolutely no light, but
I'm waiting for a serious counter-argument. . .
In the Pledge, both the government act adding
"god" and the motivation behind it are clearly to endorse religion, and for
no other purpose - there is no need to even reach motivation. I will let
you know if I find any legal arguments against the Pledge ruling.
Do you know of any decent critiques of the legal reasoning behind
the opinion?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|I do not think this decision will stand because I do not see the breach of
>:|the Establishment Clause,
Irrelevant.
>:|which seems to be the strength of the argument by
>:|Mr. Newdow, so I expect the Supreme Court to dismiss and not even hear
>:|arguments. The entire argument can, and should be, boiled down to whether or
>:|not the Establishment Clause has been violated. There is no discussion that
>:|I am aware of that seeks to overturn the Establishment Clause, and clearly
>:|this argument will not do that. The argument should be that the
>:|Establishment Clause seeks to draw a line of separation, and that the Pledge
>:|and "under God" crosses that line. I do not think that the line has been
>:|crossed, but I do agree that the line is needed and in fact is drawn in the
>:|right place. I do not see the Pledge as the vehicle to move the line that
>:|the Establishment Clause has drawn.
>:|
I suggest you try reading the following carefully:
The Decision: There are numerous references to the 1954 law, including a
few quotes from the legislative history.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf.
http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawDeci
sion&cid=1024078906457&t=LawDecision
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What can you offer cites to that counters this: [kindly provide complete
URls and/or documentation]
One (Constitutionally Illiterate) Nation Under God
The Constitution Can't Protect Our Rights If We Don't Understand Them
Jamin B. Raskin is a professor of constitutional law at American University
and director of its Marshall Brennan Fellowship Program.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5966
>:|I am not trained in Constitutional Law,
You said it.
>:|so these are my humble opinions.
yes thay are, and not that informed at that.
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
It is noted absolutely no supporing evidence is offered to back up anythign
he says.
Something else you seem to do a lot of:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>:| No, Steve, the decision was not *written.* You seem not to understand
>:|the legal process or you continually misrepresent it. It would be a "written
>:|decision" *if* and *only* if it had appeared in the Federal reporter.
Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
**************************************************************
Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court foe the District of
Columbia. Newdow v Eagen
**********************************************
JUNE 26, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWDOW v. US CONGRESS (06/26/02 - No. 00-16423)
The addition of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag (via 1954 federal statute), and a school district policy of
teacher-led daily recitation of the Pledge, with the added words
included, violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
*********************************************
From: Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com>
Organization: Š 2002 Kryolux, Inc.
Newsgroups: soc.men,milw.general,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Pledge is not unconstitutional
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:17:13 GMT
Nemesis wrote:
>
> <jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:o9o6nu0kp3b52ceof...@4ax.com...
> > "Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>
> > >:| No, Steve, the decision was not *written.* You seem not to
> understand
> > >:|the legal process or you continually misrepresent it. It would be a
> "written
> > >:|decision" *if* and *only* if it had appeared in the Federal reporter.
>
> > Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
>
> > Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
> > courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
> > Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
> > SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court foe the District of
> > Columbia. Newdow v Eagen
>
> Please note Steve that the case in point is *not* the "pledge" case.
> Nice try.
Please note that I didn't write that post. I'm not
jal...@cox.net. Nice try.
More proof of your lack of reading comprehension skills.
When did I say that Newdow was a "written decision" that was
published in a particular place? That's your misinterpretation.
I said that the Judge had written his decision, which he had,
and it was made public; but even if he'd just put it in his back
pocket and walked around with it, it WAS written... otherwise,
how could *I* have read it! THIS was my point:
1)
"The decision was written. IT was based on applying the SCotUS
precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made
in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what
parts of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of
the decision you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU
have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!"
--
Steven Krulick
Kryolux Inc
s...@krulick.com
845-647-2868
845-647-8809
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
===================================================
Nemesis
> > > This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being asked
where
> > > he practices to be an attack.
> > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was it
> > Attorney Mumford?
> I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
Any real lawyer would have no problem answering a silly question such as
where they practice. Unless, of course, they really are not at all what they
claim to be. Note how that crowd foams at the mouth demanding triplicate
proof of anything you say, but ask them a simple question first they cry
that it is an attack and then they run.
Nemesis
"Marc Satterwhite" <mtsa...@athena.louisville.edu> wrote in message
news:3D7E7012...@athena.louisville.edu...
> > I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
> >
> > Rich Soyack
>
> There is no such thing as an anti "under God" crowd. I am proud member
> of the "please don't use my tax dollars to force impressionable children
to
> participate in religious displays they may not believe in, but won't speak
> up about for fear of being ostracized and/or beaten up by the members
> of the intolerant majority religion" crowd.
They been burnin crosses on yer front lawn, have they? Interesting
notion; "I can't tell the truth because I am afraid that those who disagree
with me will beat me up if I do." Does it work for you often Marc?
Nemesis
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1020910163559.29847C-
> You are correct. thank you for speaking to that point.
> Soyack, in his paranoia, sees things that aren't there and makes claims he
> cannot support. But I am sure you don't need to be told that.
So then you agree that the simple question of where the alleged "lawyer"
practices is something he won't answer because he is afraid? Nice dodge
Smith. Think it'll fly?
Nemesis
> > They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
> >automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both
sides.
> >It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
> >allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
> >decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be.
> You are wrong you ass.
About what? And please quit calling me by the name of the location of
your brains.
No, *that* judge cannot. As I said they don't let you out much. I know
how badly you need to believe these little myths of yours. You really should
become a fundie. Your mind fits in better with them. The "decision" is
before the entire panel, that is what happened when the stay went in, of
course it would have anyway. The Chief Judge has to allow it to be heard.
After there is a ruling on the motions before the court, and *if* the
decision were sustained, *then* it would take effect in the 9th Circuit
until the Supreme Court ruled, and once accepted by the Supreme Court it
most likely would be stayed again. Why don't you study up a bit on the
process and where the case sits. I know that doesn't suit your fanaticism.
Nemesis
"Larry Smith" <dbri...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:unufvvg...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being asked
where
> > > he practices to be an attack.
> > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was it
> > Attorney Mumford?
> LOL! And get stalked real-life by some 2nd Amendment fruitcake like
> Soyack?
And your *proof* sir that Soyack has "stalked" anyone.
Paul Attles
>
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:_Prf9.5981$yd6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> where
> > > > he practices to be an attack.
>
> > > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was it
> > > Attorney Mumford?
>
>
> where they practice. Unless, of course, they really are not at all what they
> claim to be.
LOL--am I the only one who sees the irony in this?
Say Ken--are these good people aware that you are really Kenneth
Pangborn, a well-known spammer and crossposter, trying to masquerade
as someone else?
Oops, I guess they do now....LOL
Nemesis
"Paul Attles" <pm...@execs.com> wrote in message
news:9a0115c2.02091...@posting.google.com...
I guess they also know you are either Stacy Alexander or David Moore Paul.
Say what was it you said about crossposting exactly Mr. Stalker? No matter
how badly you want me to be Ken, I'm not.
Larry Smith
He uses search engines to net-stalk and has made veiled threats to others in
the newsgroup, including a challenge to Le Mur to meet him in person. For
a fistfight maybe? Or a gunfight? He's a hothead with a bad temper.
Plenty of evidence indicates Soyack is not stable, besides being a gun nut
with an obsession for the 2nd Amendment. Soyack wants to go RL: all
earmarks of a stalker.
Personally, I wouldn't want him stalking me because I don't have the time to
waste neutralizing him.
Rich Soyack
>
> "Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote in message
> news:alnn14$1otj$1...@news1.ij.net...
> >
> > "Larry Smith" <dbri...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:unufvvg...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > > > This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being
asked
> > where
> > > > > he practices to be an attack.
> >
> > > > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was
> it
> > > > Attorney Mumford?
> >
> > > LOL! And get stalked real-life by some 2nd Amendment fruitcake like
> > > Soyack?
> >
> >
> > And your *proof* sir that Soyack has "stalked" anyone.
>
> He uses search engines to net-stalk
Really, you have proof of that? You are a liar. I don't do that. Is this
one of your
tricks?
> and has made veiled threats to others in
> the newsgroup, including a challenge to Le Mur to meet him in person.
No threats, he made disparaging remarks about the victims and heros of 9/11
and I
challenged him to repeat it to my face. He said he would spit in my face,
that was
the only assault mentioned. He continues to hide and ack like a cowardly
piece of shit.
> For
> a fistfight maybe? Or a gunfight? He's a hothead with a bad temper.
When a coward speak of the brave people that I knew who lost their lives on
9/11, yes
I become angry. When a pissant like you pretends to be a lawyer I just
chuckle
> Plenty of evidence indicates Soyack is not stable, besides being a gun nut
> with an obsession for the 2nd Amendment.
Really, provide proof that I am a gun nut.
> Soyack wants to go RL: all
> earmarks of a stalker.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't want him stalking me because I don't have the time
to
> waste neutralizing him.
Gee, speaking of veiled threats.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>:|news:_Prf9.5981$yd6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>:|
>:|> > > This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being asked
>:|where
>:|> > > he practices to be an attack.
>:|
>:|> > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was it
>:|> > Attorney Mumford?
>:|
>:|> I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
>:|
>:| Any real lawyer would have no problem answering a silly question such as
>:|where they practice.
They wouldn't waste their time replying to a irrelevant question.
They would recognize it for exactly what it was, an attempt to distract, to
focus attention away from the actual valid information they provided. They
would recognize it as a straw sling.
Professionals don't waste their time playing the silly games some people
like you and your buddy like to play here.
While there are sites on the WWW where you can find various scholars and
professionals in a lot of disciplines, you don't run into too many in these
types of newsgroups.
They don't have the inclination, time or patience to deal with the rowdy un
professionals, the rude and crude, the game players that frequent such
groups.
Neither attorney that I am in contact with post in these newsgroups.
They contacted me via email as a result of our web site.
Which is not unusual, we get emails from a variety of professionals from
time to time as a result of the web site.
Since one is the subject of all of these posts, I asked him his comments on
claims certain people were making. I also asked the other for his comments
on the same claims. They emailed me their comments along with permission to
use those comments.
>:|Unless, of course, they really are not at all what they
>:|claim to be. Note how that crowd foams at the mouth demanding triplicate
>:|proof of anything you say,
That is correct, proof with regards to claims dealing with data. Do note, I
have never asked you who you are, what you do, where you live, etc. I could
care less about any of those things. Same with your buddy.
>:| but ask them a simple question
Irrelevant question.
You want to prove that a person isn't what they claim they are, or more
exact I claimed they were, since they did not reply directly to you or your
buddy.
Show that the information they provided is incorrect. Note, I said show, I
didn't say, say it is incorrect.
Ultimately, a person is recognized based on what they provide.
>:|first they cry
>:|that it is an attack and then they run.
Who ran, who said it was an attack.
I have no intenetion of providing anymore information about either person
than I have provided for the reasons given:
It is
(1) a irrelevant question.
(2) an attempt to distract
(3) an attempt to reframe, focus attention away from the actual valid
information that was provided that you nor your buddy can effectively
challenge and show to be in error.
(4) a strawman.
(5) none of your business. You want to try and discredit them?you will
have to deal with the information they provided. If you can't or won't do
that, too bad.
Marc Satterwhite
Actually, I was speaking about children in school, who often do not
speak up when they are in the minority for just those reasons.
And, as I have related on this NG before, I speak from personal
experience. When I was in high school and became an atheist, I
stopped saying the words "under God" in the pledge, and while I
didn't go around waving a sign saying "I don't believe in God,"
I didn't keep it hidden either. As a result I was frequently verbally
harrased, and on one occasion physically assaulted. I'm reasonably
sure of the motive of my attackers because one of them called me
a "f***ing atheist pussy."
A Jewish friend of mine told that when she was in (public) school
many years ago, her family had her "opt out" of the official
school prayers, as they were distinctly Christian. She was
made to sit in the hallway while the class prayed, and the
teacher made snide remarks about how she "didn't believe in
God." This was, of course untrue. She did believe in God,
just not in Jesus. But even if she didn't believe in God,
so what?
It's not hard to imagine that a child or adolescent might
simply decide to keep quiet rather than risk that kind of
ostracism and/or actual physical violence.
And it's wrong to use tax dollars to put them in a position
where they even have to make such a decision.
Best, Marc
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>:|news:hWGe9.388$5i...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>:|
>:|> And when I questioned the credentials of the "attorney" he brought in he
>:|called
>:|> my behavior "juvenile delinquent" and said I was using a strawman.
>:|Incredible.
>:| My comment is this, he brings this alleged "attorney"
Alleged?
I don't allege I said they were both attorneys.
You want to challenge that, hey, whatever floats your boat. Have fun.
>:|into the mix who
>:|makes statements of law that are at best "questionable"
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take them point by point and show why and how they are incorrect.
Gee, if you can't do that maybe they really are lawyers. if you can gee
maybe they aren't. How simple, who would even have thought it, huh?
>:|and when a
>:|reasonable question is asked as to where they practice law not only do you
>:|*not* get a direct answer to a simple question you got attacked. Any *real*
>:|lawyer would not have a problem saying that "my office is in Los Angeles" or
>:|wherever. Which only makes *me* think the "lawyer" is a phony. And I will
>:|until shown otherwise.
Who cares what you think
It is noted that you did not touch the information they provided:
Talk about unanswered questions:
------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!"
--
Steven Krulick
Kryolux Inc
s...@krulick.com
845-647-2868
845-647-8809
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
====================================================
The rest:
I have accomplished that which I set out to accomplish:
Provide the facts to the crap you have been peddling for some time now.
Let's see, my sources have been:
Black's Law Dictionary
Two Attorneys
A replica situation demonstrating how the process works as it follows the
various steps with regards to voucher scheme from Cleveland, Ohio.
Your sources have been:
Duh, you!
(3) "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the
federal courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal.
2002)"
SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
Columbia. Newdow v. Eagen, [Congressional Chaplains] section J. INJURY
IN FACT TO PLAINTIFF - PERSONAL REPROACH page 16
============================================
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>:|news:x%ue9.5944$aG2....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>:|
>:|> I can't, for the life of me, understand what point he is even trying to
>:|> make. THe Stayed decision is not in effect in any jurisdiction in the
>:|USA.
>:|
>:|
>:| I tried to make the point that in a legal sense it is the same as if
>:|those two judges had said nothing. I pointed out that it wasn't "law" and
>:|didn't really exist until it hit the Federal Reporter. He then referenced an
>:|entirely different case of Newdow's that was reported. I think he argues
>:|like the "little brother from hell." When he runs out of rational factual
>:|arguments, he just starts making things up.
It is noted absolutely no supporing evidence is offered to back up anythign
he says.
Something else you seem to do a lot of:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>:| No, Steve, the decision was not *written.* You seem not to understand
>:|the legal process or you continually misrepresent it. It would be a "written
>:|decision" *if* and *only* if it had appeared in the Federal reporter.
Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
**************************************************************
Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
**********************************************
> > Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
>
> > Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
> > courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
> > Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
> > SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court foe the District of
> > Columbia. Newdow v Eagen
>
> Please note Steve that the case in point is *not* the "pledge" case.
> Nice try.
Please note that I didn't write that post. I'm not
jal...@cox.net. Nice try.
More proof of your lack of reading comprehension skills.
When did I say that Newdow was a "written decision" that was
published in a particular place? That's your misinterpretation.
I said that the Judge had written his decision, which he had,
and it was made public; but even if he'd just put it in his back
pocket and walked around with it, it WAS written... otherwise,
how could *I* have read it! THIS was my point:
1)
"The decision was written. IT was based on applying the SCotUS
precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made
in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what
parts of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of
the decision you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU
have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
Rich Soyack
news:15vunu0g1vlett7sl...@4ax.com...
> "Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>
> >:|
> >:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >:|news:_Prf9.5981$yd6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >:|
> >:|> > > This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being
asked
> >:|where
> >:|> > > he practices to be an attack.
> >:|
> >:|> > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question.
Was it
> >:|> > Attorney Mumford?
> >:|
> >:|> I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
> >:|
> >:| Any real lawyer would have no problem answering a silly question
such as
> >:|where they practice.
>
> They wouldn't waste their time replying to a irrelevant question.
>
> They would recognize it for exactly what it was, an attempt to distract,
to
> focus attention away from the actual valid information they provided. They
> would recognize it as a straw sling.
Nope, when you refer to someone's credentials to add weight to your argument
you have to provide proof of those credentials. Its really very simple
You idiotic attempts to wave your hands have been clipped.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:| No, *that* judge cannot. As I said they don't let you out much. I know
>:|how badly you need to believe these little myths of yours. You really should
>:|become a fundie. Your mind fits in better with them. The "decision" is
>:|before the entire panel, that is what happened when the stay went in, of
>:|course it would have anyway. The Chief Judge has to allow it to be heard.
>:|After there is a ruling on the motions before the court, and *if* the
>:|decision were sustained, *then* it would take effect in the 9th Circuit
>:|until the Supreme Court ruled, and once accepted by the Supreme Court it
>:|most likely would be stayed again. Why don't you study up a bit on the
>:|process and where the case sits. I know that doesn't suit your fanaticism.
SO YOU SAY:
HERE IS WHAT OTHERS SAY. PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE WHICH THEY
THINK DOES THE BEST JOB OF PROVIDING THE FACTS:
(3) "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the
federal courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal.
2002)"
SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
Columbia. Newdow v. Eagen, [Congressional Chaplains] section J. INJURY
IN FACT TO PLAINTIFF - PERSONAL REPROACH page 16
choice" and does not offend the First Amendment's Establishment
Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/001751.html
*********************************************
JUNE 26, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWDOW v. US CONGRESS (06/26/02 - No. 00-16423)
The addition of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag (via 1954 federal statute), and a school district policy of
teacher-led daily recitation of the Pledge, with the added words
included, violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
*********************************************
===============================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FINDLAW DAILY OPINION SUMMARIES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
December 11, 2000
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/courts/6th.html
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EDUCATION LAW SIMMONS-HARRIS v. ZELMAN, No 00-3055,
3060, 3063 (6th Cir. December 11, 2000)
Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program school voucher program violates the
Establishment Clause because it does not permit private citizens to direct
government aid freely, but rather restricts choice to religious
institutions and spaces with only a few alternative possibilities.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/00a0411p.html
OHIO
(3) FROM THE FIRST ATTORNEY, M.A. Newdow, in email replies to jalison
****************************************************
[Jeff Strickland had written ]
>:|What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
>:|1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional. The only remedies are
>:|either to scrap the entire pledge, or to only take out "under God." Let's
>:|back the truck up a few feet here, if the full court had been around when
>:|the minority panel elected to take arguments, then perhaps the court would
>:|not have even heard the case and dismissed it. If this had happened, then we
>:|would be waiting for a new challenge to the Pledge, but since the minority
>:|panel elected to hear arguments, we are having this discussion today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
En bane /an ba'qk/on bogk/. L. Fr. In the bench. Full bench. Refers to a
session where the entire membership of the court will participate in the
decision rather than the regular quorum. In other countries, it is common
for a court to have more members than are usually necessary to hear an
appeal. In the United States, the Circuit Courts of Appeal usually sit in
panels of judges but for important cases may expand the bench to a larger
number, when they are said to be sitting en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 35.
Similarly, only one of the judges of the U.S. Tax Court will typically hear
and decide on a tax controversy. However, when the issues involved are
unusually novel or of wide impact, the case will be heard and decided by
the full court sitting en banc. An appellate court in which all the judges
who are necessary for a quorum are sitting as contrasted with a session of
such court presided over by a single justice or panel of justices.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition,
(1891-1991) West publishing Co. (1991) p. 364
================================================
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Jeff Strickland" <CRWL...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
>:|news:unl8tbs...@corp.supernews.com...
>:|
>:| First, Jeff, Thanks for an entirely rational post.
>:|
>:|> I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in any
>:|> jurisdiction anywhere.
>:|
>:|> There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
>:|> might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
>:|> die. What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
>:|> 1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional.
>:|
>:| (minor correction) Two judges initially decided it of the 3. One has
>:|changed sides.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|The case could be before the entire 9th Circuit, however, the
>:|chief Judge has decided to allow the case to "die in committee" on the
>:|table. As of the last i saw there was nothing anywhere on the docket for it
>:|to be heard. When the present session ends and there has been no action
>:|taken, the case evaporates legally
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another says to the above point:
*********************************************************
["Nemesis" wrote:]
He seems to have magical thinking that the "decision" is in a different
place than it is. The place it is at legally is what under Robert's Rules
of Order could best describe as a motion that has been "tabled." If the
whole court doesn't act before the end of its current session the thing
dies with no further action. It's dead. While there is a chance it will be
yanked off the table, the word around the courthouse has been that they
have no real stomach to have this one hit the fast track before the
Supremes and get another tongue lashing from Washington. Newdow isn't
bright enough to realize that the present SCOTUS is unlikely to see the
issues in his dogmatic view. Can't blame him for wishing though.
===========================================
****************************************************
>:| Everyone has appealed, if you didn't know. The "full court" has in
>:|essence "tabled" the decision. It is as if it never happened unless the
>:|court takes further action. Given the political climate, that isn't likely.
>:|Since the 9th Circuit is the most reversed circuit in American history and
>:|the most "admonished" they are not really fired up to take on the Supremes
>:|on this one. They have gotten enough bad press already. They just want the
>:|issue gone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an interesdting comment thyat is relevant to this:
=======================================================
From: "Fester" <n...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: The Pledge
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:30:33 -0700
The reaction to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to Mr. Neudow's case
regarding the pledge of allegiance has been nothing short of violent.
Politicians have been brutalizing each other in their attempts to demagogue
their objections more strenuously than their peers. Reasoning has been the
first casualty of this political hot-button. Given several months' passage
since this decision, I would like to now offer a perspective on this issue
which I have not heard expressed.
The genius behind our government is that it's form was drafted by men with
a profound distrust of power. The framers of our Constitution instituted a
system of checks and balances for the expressed purpose of restraint on our
leaders. Thus we have a division of the Executive, Legislative and
Judicial powers into separate branches of government. The Executive and
Legislative branches are popularly elected. Their mission is to institute
the will of the majority, in accordance with the conditions set forth in
the Constitution. The Judiciary is charged with interpretting the
Constitution and, when necessary, blocking the actions of the other two
branches. Our founding fathers defined what they considered to be the
basic rights that all citizens should enjoy in a free society. Codified in
our Bill of rights, our founders placed constraints on the powers of the
popularly-elected branches of government.
Judicial decisions are often unpopular because it is their job to be
unpopular! They are charged with preventing the majority from carrying out
their desires, when those desires conflict with Constitutional restraints,
designed to protect he rights of all citizens. Politicians have
notoriously taken up the chant when their (and the wills of the majority
their constituents) are thwarted, but our system is designed to prevent
them from overstepping their bounds. The ratification of our Constitution
was an acceptance of a social contract. We as a nation agreed to the
acceptance of governemt by the will of the majority, subject to certain
limitations. The nature of this contract was described early on, and
restated in numerous forms throughout the series of pamphlets (known
collectively as the Federalist Papers) written during the ratification
process. The very first of these states early on that:
"And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have
already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former
cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant
passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite
parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince
the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their
converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their
invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government
will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and
hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger
to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head
than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the
stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be
forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love,
and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a
spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be
equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security
of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed
judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous
ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights
of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness
and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has
been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than
the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of
republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an
obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."
The mistrust that our founders showed towards popular opinion is rivaled in
their words only by the inevitable outcome of such uncontested rule ...
tyrany! The conflict between allowing the popular will to rule and the
necessity of preserving individual liberties was resolved by the formation
of our Judicial branch. The significance of it's independence from the
Executive and Legislative powers of government cannot be overstated. The
Federalist #78 returns to this theme with these words:
"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential
in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one
which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority;
such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no
ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved
in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice,
whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of
the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular
rights or privileges would amount to nothing."
I do not doubt the good intentions of the majority who would like school
children to recite daliy the pledge in it's current form. As had been
foreseen in the excerpt from the 1st Federalist Paper, however, we have as
much to fear from "good" intentions as we do from malignant designs. The
pledge decision has been characterized as "An over-scrupulous jealosy of
danger to the rights of the people." Nevertheless, the authors of the
Federalist papers admonish us about history's teachings. We have much more
to fear from unrestrained demagogues than overly officious courts.
Having established the authority of the court to judge the most popular of
governmental activities unconstitutional, we can now turn our attention to
the question of whether they reached the correct decision. The question
centers around whether the daily recitation of the pledge violates the
establishment clause of the 1st ammendment to our Constitution. The text
of that ammendment states that:
"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."
These are the very first words in our Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers
recognized these rights as the most basic and necessary to any civilization
which calls itself free. Paramount among the enumerated rights of citizens
in this nation is the right to be free from government-imposed religion and
the right to worship as one wishes. It is true that the courts have upheld
certain, limited exceptions to the absolute meaning to our enumerated
rights. Among these are the celebrated restriction that one may not
falsely cry, "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Such limits, placed upon these
freedoms are rare, and can only be upheld when they are found to be
directly and provably contrary to the general welfare. So what is the
lesson that we teach school-aged children when their first introduction to
government includes the words, "under God?" How do we reconcile the most
fundamental of civics lessons, adherence to our Constitution and Bill of
Rights, with such disregard for the primary right granted to us as
citizens?
Many have argued that our acceptance into mainstream, political life of
religious thought in some way justifies this intrusion on our liberties.
But is there not a greater danger when children are the subject of
governmental endorsement of religious belief? We all know that the
recitation of the Pledge is a (nominally) voluntary act, but are there not
overwhelming forms of coercion which negate the voluntary nature of the
exercise? One must consider the circumstances with which young children
are faced. Children, lacking in self-confidence and self-reliance are
naturally concerned with fitting in with their peers. They are also known
to lack empathy for others who do not fit in, or are in some way different.
These are undoubtedly natural parts of human psychological development. It
is also the case, that responsible parents instill in their children a
healthy respect for authority. Among these authority figures are teachers.
When a teacher conducts a recitation, and invites the participation of the
entire class, is it reasonable to expect a 7 year old child to refuse? Is
it reasonable to expect a child to refuse the request of a figure in
authority? Is it reasonable to expect a child to demonstrate the maturity
and self-confidence to act differently from his or her peers? The 9th
Circuit has ruled that it is not a reasonable expectation for child.
In this author's opinion, the recitation of a Pledge of Allegience which
does not include those 3 controversial syllables is a useful and productive
activity which is in full accordance with both the letter and the spirit
of our Bill of Rights. The pledge in it's original form was a statement of
patriotism and unity which were important to establishing regard in our
children for the principles of this nation. The founders of our nation
emphasized as strongly as they could that God and country are 2 different
subjects. In recent times we as a nation have chosen to blur the
distinction between them. I urge all who read this to petition their
government representative as I have, to give us back our pledge the way it
was before political forces interjected religious sentiments into it.
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United State of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
Fester,
The Not-So-Bad-Assed Atheist #369
jal...@cox.net
>:|Thanks to "jalison" for this poetic update:
Actually you need to thank Steven Krulick. he is the one who posted it.
That was clearly shown in my repost of his post.
From: Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com>
Organization: Š 2002 Kryolux, Inc.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.politics.usa.constitution,milw.general,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Pledge is unconstitutional!
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:11:46 GMT
[snip]
MINSTREL (singing): Brave Rich Soyack ran away
Bravely ran away away
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes Brave Rich Soyack turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Rich Soyack
Packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering off
And chickening out and pissing off home
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...
--
Steven Krulick
s...@krulick.com
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:|Brave Rich Soyack ran away
Steve Krulick
>
> Mr. F. Le Mur <lemu...@attxbi.com> wrote:
>
> >:|Thanks to "jalison" for this poetic update:
>
> Actually you need to thank Steven Krulick. he is the one who posted it.
> That was clearly shown in my repost of his post.
And, to give credit where due, this was "adapted" from the
minstrel's song to "Brave Sir Robin" in "Monty Python and the
Holy Grail." The other analogy I used for Soyboy was the Black
Knight scene from the same film, in which the knight, despite
losing both arms and legs to King Arthur, claims to have won the
fight against Arthur, and still threatens to bite his legs off!
Or, as the King asks him, "What are you going to do, bleed on
me?"
[From Monty Python and the Holy Grail!:
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[Headbutts Arthur in the chest]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right! [whop]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!
Come on then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away, 'eh? ... You yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you.... I'll
bite your legs off!
When pinned down in a battle of wits, all Soybean can do is
repeat "LOL" and side-step. He STILL has not answered the direct
questions and challenges put to him.
Nemesis
"Mr. F. Le Mur" <lemu...@attxbi.com> wrote in message
news:vmpunukmrpjkok444...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:16:13 -0400, "Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>
> ->
> ->
> ->"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> ->news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1020910163559.29847C-
> ->
> ->> You are correct. thank you for speaking to that point.
> ->> Soyack, in his paranoia, sees things that aren't there and makes
claims he
> ->> cannot support. But I am sure you don't need to be told that.
> ->
> -> So then you agree that the simple question of where the alleged
"lawyer"
> ->practices is something he won't answer because he is afraid? Nice dodge
> ->Smith. Think it'll fly?
> ->
>
> There's no reason why he should say where he practices because it's
totally irrelevant.
Of course you'd say that. You have no other choice. Of course those of
us who have some legal knowledge and question whether he is this high priced
"Constitutional" lawyer might like to check him out to see if he is real
since some of the things he said make it seem otherwise. No legit *lawyer*
would have a problem saying "I practice in Philadelphia" or wherever. It's
at least as "relevant" and the proof you always demand.
Nemesis
> > And your *proof* sir that Soyack has "stalked" anyone.
> He uses search engines to net-stalk and has made veiled threats to others
in
> the newsgroup, including a challenge to Le Mur to meet him in person.
For
> a fistfight maybe? Or a gunfight? He's a hothead with a bad temper.
> Plenty of evidence indicates Soyack is not stable, besides being a gun nut
> with an obsession for the 2nd Amendment. Soyack wants to go RL: all
> earmarks of a stalker.
> Personally, I wouldn't want him stalking me because I don't have the time
to
> waste neutralizing him.
I have never seen Rich do that. I have seen him do a google search on
the crap some people have said, but lots of people do that. There is nothing
sinister in it. It's like anything else, you face somebody in a debate, you
look up their history to learn what you can about them. He did that to Ms.
Smith. He found out her style. As to Rich being a "hothead," he's lesser
than some others in here. I think you see what you want to see in him. I
have suggested "say that to my face" to people, but not really meaning
anything about beating anybody up, but more hinting to them that they'd
never say the things that they are saying in person. A hint is that if you
wouldn't say that to my face, you shouldn't say it.
Nemesis
> > >:|> > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question.
Was it
> > >:|> > Attorney Mumford?
> > >:|> I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
> > >:| Any real lawyer would have no problem answering a silly question
such as
> > >:|where they practice.
> > They wouldn't waste their time replying to a irrelevant question.
> > They would recognize it for exactly what it was, an attempt to distract,
to
> > focus attention away from the actual valid information they provided.
They
> > would recognize it as a straw sling.
> Nope, when you refer to someone's credentials to add weight to your
argument
> you have to provide proof of those credentials. Its really very simple
But the information was at best "questionable" hence the question of
where they practiced. The attempts to hide the credentials of the person
only serve to underscore that in all probability they are frauds, perhaps
the guy is a janitor in a courthouse. A *real* lawyer would not have had a
problem answering. It is no more changing the subject than their constant
red herrings demanding proof on everything. I think that "lawyer" wears a
straw jockstrap.He's right on that because he wasn't right on the law.