"Under God" bill fails to advance

[jillian]

But that's not what it is generally understood to mean, jillian. You know this; we've been through it many times. If we can start calling black white every time it supports an argument, language itself becomes meaningless. Moreover, you have not answered my original question: why was it OK for the judiciary to spend the last sixty years messing up the balance of powers in the name of a short-term agenda? Isn't wrong ALWAYS wrong?

Actually, it isn't "generally understood" as anything except a hot button term. I like defining my terms.

As for your original question.... I don't think they have messed up the balance of powers. I think the Court has done it's job. It's only now that it's upsetting the balance of powers in favor of the executive branch. At least that's how I see it.

Understanding that any human enterprise is necessarily fraught with imperfection, to which side should we err - toward the will of the people, or that of a judicial elite? Can there always be a definitive answer to that question? No, I'll admit. But, in so doing, I thereby deny the demigod status of the judiciary. The beating heart of the Constitution is its determination to thwart tyranny in all its forms. That document, must, therefore, be our guide.

But the document was intended to be a guide, not literally translated. It was left flexible to meet changing circumstances since the issues facing the Court now couldn't possibly have been envisioned by the Founders. It has always been more about "effectuating the intent" of the founders, rather than enforcing just words on a page.

Again, if the Constitution was to be "literally" construed, we wouldn't even have judicial review since the concept wasn't articulated until Marbury v Madison.

 

[jillian]

An example of a tryant who gained his power by promising freedom for those who would fight with him? Too facile?

I do believe you just evaded my question.

 

[Bullypulpit]

What's with these Republicans? All talk and no do.

Maybe it's because these "issues" aren't really issues at all. I mean why deal with the war in Iraq, the budget deficit, the crumbling infrastructure, unsecured ports and borders, unsecured nuclear and chemical facilities, a failing healthcre system, the still unaddressed aftermath of Katrina, when we have such pressing issues as flag burning and whether or not "under God" remains in the Pledge of Allegiance?

 

[musicman]

Actually, it isn't "generally understood" as anything except a hot button term. I like defining my terms.

For fifty-nine of the last sixty years, "judicial activism" has been the working definition of the liberal judiciary's concerted effort to circumvent the will of the people. But now it means something else, because you and a couple of law students writing an op-ed piece for the NYT say it does.

I like defining my terms, too. From now on, every day is my birthday. I don't have to go to work, and everyone must buy me presents.

As for your original question.... I don't think they have messed up the balance of powers. I think the Court has done it's job.

Then you loathe and distrust representative government, because the Court has done a real "job" on that.

It's only now that it's upsetting the balance of powers in favor of the executive branch. At least that's how I see it.

Even if that were true, at least the executive branch is ultimately accountable to the people. But, it isn't true. If GWB succeeds in steering the Court toward a constructionist course, he'll have helped RESTORE the balance of powers.

But the document was intended to be a guide, not literally translated. It was left flexible to meet changing circumstances since the issues facing the Court now couldn't possibly have been envisioned by the Founders.

Ah yes - we're so modern - so unique - so far advanced. Underneath it all, we're still just people, jillian. Our fundamental nature hasn't changed in 200 years - or 2000, for that matter. The genius of the Constitution is the context in which it was written - that being man's inescapable, egocentric self. He may strive toward tyranny in miraculous conveyances, wearing styles Ben Franklin couldn't have dreamed of. But he strives toward tyranny nonetheless.

It has always been more about "effectuating the intent" of the founders, rather than enforcing just words on a page.

We've been discussing jurisdictions, separation of powers, and the like. Would you mind showing me the "flexibility" in Amendment X? I can't find it anywhere; the damn thing has this conspicuous ring of finality to it. And it is central to this debate. The federal government would appear to have a very limited, very specific set of powers. Beyond that, the conduct of everyday life appears to be the province of the people - through their duly elected state representatives. Every time I try to imagine this brave new world, where a "flexible" constitution is stretched out of shape by a loving, benevolent central government, I run into this wall. And, on the wall is written, "See Amendment X". Can you help me?

Again, if the Constitution was to be "literally" construed, we wouldn't even have judicial review since the concept wasn't articulated until Marbury v Madison.

Even so, a law is to be reviwed in one context, and one context only - is it, or is it not, constitutional? Interpretational flights of fancy were not part of the deal; nor was the Constitution's "compatibility" with the documents of other nations. The Court has descended into agenda-driven madness; only a return to constructionism will avert a constitutional crisis at this point.

 

[Mr. P]

Get over the "GOD" stuff folks! It wasn't in there until 1954.

The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God".

http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html

 

[musicman]

Get over the "GOD" stuff folks! It wasn't in there until 1954.

I am, personally, not all that concerned about the "God" stuff. It's the "how the hell did this become the federal government's business?" stuff that bothers me.

 

[Mr. P]

I am, personally, not all that concerned about the "God" stuff. It's the "how the hell did this become the federal government's business?" stuff that bothers me.

I guess it was in 1942....

It still was an "unofficial" pledge until June 22, 1942 when the United States Congress included the Pledge to the Flag in the United States Flag Code (Title 36). This was the first Official sanction given to the words that had been recited each day by children for almost fifty years. One year after receiving this official sanction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge as part of their daily routine.

 

[musicman]

I guess it was in 1942....

One of my favorite illustrations of the uniquely American character goes something like this:

In 1970, both the U.S. and Canadian governments decreed to their respective populations that they would henceforth be using the metric system.

The Canadian people obediently converted to the metric system.

The American people ignored their government.

I miss this kind of good old American spirit.

 

[Mr. P]

One of my favorite illustrations of the uniquely American character goes something like this:

In 1970, both the U.S. and Canadian governments decreed to their respective populations that they would henceforth be using the metric system.

The Canadian people obediently converted to the metric system.

The American people ignored their government.

I miss this kind of good old American spirit.

Me too, but I think it's still here, we're just silent.

 

[manu1959]

One of my favorite illustrations of the uniquely American character goes something like this:

In 1970, both the U.S. and Canadian governments decreed to their respective populations that they would henceforth be using the metric system.

The Canadian people obediently converted to the metric system.

The American people ignored their government.

I miss this kind of good old American spirit.

they are french.....immediate surrender is genetic

 

[jillian]

For fifty-nine of the last sixty years, "judicial activism" has been the working definition of the liberal judiciary's concerted effort to circumvent the will of the people. But now it means something else, because you and a couple of law students writing an op-ed piece for the NYT say it does.

Law students? Perhaps you're being a bit dismissive?

I like defining my terms, too. From now on, every day is my birthday. I don't have to go to work, and everyone must buy me presents.

I like that. Mine is next week.

Then you loathe and distrust representative government, because the Court has done a real "job" on that.

Without the Court, there would still be segregation and Virginia would still have a law prohibiting intermarriage, Connecticut would still be barring people from purchasing contraception even if they were married. So much for representative government.

Even if that were true, at least the executive branch is ultimately accountable to the people. But, it isn't true. If GWB succeeds in steering the Court toward a constructionist course, he'll have helped RESTORE the balance of powers.

The executive was NEVER intended to be able to overrule the Court or Congress...especially surreptitiously, through signing statements.

Ah yes - we're so modern - so unique - so far advanced. Underneath it all, we're still just people, jillian. Our fundamental nature hasn't changed in 200 years - or 2000, for that matter. The genius of the Constitution is the context in which it was written - that being man's inescapable, egocentric self. He may strive toward tyranny in miraculous conveyances, wearing styles Ben Franklin couldn't have dreamed of. But he strives toward tyranny nonetheless.

Personally, I think it's tyrannical for a president to presume to be more powerful than the Court and Congress, particularly by achieving that end through secrecy.

We've been discussing jurisdictions, separation of powers, and the like. Would you mind showing me the "flexibility" in Amendment X? I can't find it anywhere; the damn thing has this conspicuous ring of finality to it. And it is central to this debate. The federal government would appear to have a very limited, very specific set of powers. Beyond that, the conduct of everyday life appears to be the province of the people - through their duly elected state representatives. Every time I try to imagine this brave new world, where a "flexible" constitution is stretched out of shape by a loving, benevolent central government, I run into this wall. And, on the wall is written, "See Amendment X". Can you help me?

And the States can't pass any law more restrictive of rights than those set forth by the U.S. Constitution. Not sure I see your problem. We don't live under the Articles of Confederation. That issue has been pretty much put to rest.

Even so, a law is to be reviwed in one context, and one context only - is it, or is it not, constitutional? Interpretational flights of fancy were not part of the deal; nor was the Constitution's "compatibility" with the documents of other nations. The Court has descended into agenda-driven madness; only a return to constructionism will avert a constitutional crisis at this point.

Interpretational flights of fancy? Er...no. The Constitution is supposed to be construed in favor of individual freedom and not for the benefit of government or the expansion of government. You want to talk agenda-driven madness? OK... trying to pass an amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage or flag burning...I think those things are agenda-driven madness, as is the concept of holding people without charges for an indefinite period of time. What else was agenda driven madness...the Dred Scott decision, Plessy v Ferguson. THOSE were agenda driven madness.

Once again...we have never been "strict constructionists", so there would be no "return" to that. Rather, it turns the Constitution on its ear since, as I stated prior, even the concept of judicial review isn't specifically set forth in the Constitution, but was the result of an early Court decision.

 

[manu1959]

if we are not one nation under god...

if not in god we trust

if not i will tell the whole truth so help me god

if not i swear to god

if not god help me

if god please don't let me die

what are we then?

 

[PsuedoGhost]

if we are not one nation under god...

if not in god we trust

if not i will tell the whole truth so help me god

if not i swear to god

if not god help me

if god please don't let me die

what are we then?

Apparently nothing, because not everyone believes in God in the United States. If God is the unifying factor in the US, then we were doomed from the get go. I on the other hand tend to think it's an opportunistic spirit, coupled with an undying pursuit of happiness and liberty. But you know, whichever floats your boat.

 

[musicman]

Law students? Perhaps you're being a bit dismissive?

Not without ample justification - no. Don't you think rewriting the dictionary on a whim displays a bit of hubris?

Without the Court, there would still be segregation and Virginia would still have a law prohibiting intermarriage, Connecticut would still be barring people from purchasing contraception even if they were married. So much for representative government.

Strawman argument. I never said "abolish the courts".

The executive was NEVER intended to be able to overrule the Court or Congress...especially surreptitiously, through signing statements...
Personally, I think it's tyrannical for a president to presume to be more powerful than the Court and Congress, particularly by achieving that end through secrecy.

At least the Court and Congress are not without remedy - as has been the case with judicial activism.

And the States can't pass any law more restrictive of rights than those set forth by the U.S. Constitution. Not sure I see your problem. We don't live under the Articles of Confederation. That issue has been pretty much put to rest.

Why don't I feel "restful", then? Oh - I know! It's because Amendment X is part of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and still applies! The federal government has a limited, specific list of powers and duties. Beyond that, it is instructed by the U.S. Constitution to BUTT OUT of the everyday affairs of Americans.

Interpretational flights of fancy? Er...no.

Er...a national policy on abortion?

The Constitution is supposed to be construed in favor of individual freedom and not for the benefit of government or the expansion of government.

Er...a NATIONAL POLICY ON ABORTION?

You want to talk agenda-driven madness?

ER...A NATIONAL POLICY ON ABORTION?

OK... trying to pass an amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage or flag burning...

Keyword: trying. At least the legislative and executive powers labor under the burden of accountability to the voters. Not so with the arrogant missteps of the federal judiciary.

I think those things are agenda-driven madness, as is the concept of holding people without charges for an indefinite period of time.

Please elaborate.

What else was agenda driven madness...the Dred Scott decision, Plessy v Ferguson. THOSE were agenda driven madness.

I sense that you're trying to lay these two decisions at the doorstep of conservatism. Why?

Once again...we have never been "strict constructionists", so there would be no "return" to that. Rather, it turns the Constitution on its ear since, as I stated prior, even the concept of judicial review isn't specifically set forth in the Constitution, but was the result of an early Court decision.

I don't believe I said "strict" constructionist. I'd have to say that the strictness part would be relative and subjective. In the same way a thirty-year devotee of the MSM/DNC monopoly might consider straight news "slanted to the hard right", a proponent of judicial activism might regard as "strict constructionist" any approach that did not regard the Constitution as a mild little historical curiosity; a springboard for the advancement of a liberal social agenda. It's all degrees and perspective, isn't it?

 

[musicman]

they are french.....immediate surrender is genetic

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to manu1959 again.

I owe ya, man - LMAO!

 

[jillian]

Not without ample justification - no. Don't you think rewriting the dictionary on a whim displays a bit of hubris?

"Activist judges" is a term tossed about by the right to inflame. It HAD no meaning other than "judges are doing what we don't like". So, defining it seems appropriate. I also happen to think it reasonable to define actiivist as overtuning legislative action, since your complaint is that judges legislate from the bench...apparently they do, but it's the "conservatives".

Strawman argument. I never said "abolish the courts".

No...you just don't want them to be able to do anything that you don't like. Thing is, two of the cases I mentioned were decided based on the "right to privacy" that the right says doesn't exist. Hence my saying intermarriage and purchase of contraception would be outlawed in Virginia and Connecticut, respectively.

[/QUOTE]At least the Court and Congress are not without remedy - as has been the case with judicial activism.[/QUOTE]

Except that the founders intended the Court to, ostensibly, be above politics. They didn't WANT them to be subject to the whims of a bunch of self-serving politicians. By being "literal" about hte Consititution, seems the "meaning" is being ignored.

Why don't I feel "restful", then? Oh - I know! It's because Amendment X is part of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and still applies! The federal government has a limited, specific list of powers and duties. Beyond that, it is instructed by the U.S. Constitution to BUTT OUT of the everyday affairs of Americans.

....unless of course, you want to take away my right to reproductive choice because it offends your religious sensibilities.

And you can repeat the phrase all you want. It's not about a "national policy", it's about the States not being allowed to infringe on that same right to privacy that I mentioned above.

Keyword: trying. At least the legislative and executive powers labor under the burden of accountability to the voters. Not so with the arrogant missteps of the federal judiciary.

Again, some ijit politician pandering to a few of his constituents by taking away others' rights, HAS no obligation to defend individual freedoms. THAT'S what the Court is for and that's WHY the Court was never intended to be subject to politics (although apparently the right has done it's best to change that) hence lifetime terms.

You might not like it, but they were always supposed to have the last word.

I sense that you're trying to lay these two decisions at the doorstep of conservatism. Why?

Because both were the result of the same type of Court that's being created now and based on arguments similar to those once again being pushed by the right.

I don't believe I said "strict" constructionist. I'd have to say that the strictness part would be relative and subjective. In the same way a thirty-year devotee of the MSM/DNC monopoly might consider straight news "slanted to the hard right", a proponent of judicial activism might regard as "strict constructionist" any approach that did not regard the Constitution as a mild little historical curiosity; a springboard for the advancement of a liberal social agenda. It's all degrees and perspective, isn't it?

And I think people who want "strict constructionism", want activism that THEY like. In fact, there is no such thing as "selective" strict constructionism.

Seems like you want an activist Court when you want it to do what YOU want, but want them to stay quiet when it is going to do what you don't.

 

[dilloduck]

"Activist judges" is a term tossed about by the right to inflame. It HAD no meaning other than "judges are doing what we don't like". So, defining it seems appropriate. I also happen to think it reasonable to define actiivist as overtuning legislative action, since your complaint is that judges legislate from the bench...apparently they do, but it's the "conservatives".



No...you just don't want them to be able to do anything that you don't like. Thing is, two of the cases I mentioned were decided based on the "right to privacy" that the right says doesn't exist. Hence my saying intermarriage and purchase of contraception would be outlawed in Virginia and Connecticut, respectively.

At least the Court and Congress are not without remedy - as has been the case with judicial activism.[/QUOTE]

Except that the founders intended the Court to, ostensibly, be above politics. They didn't WANT them to be subject to the whims of a bunch of self-serving politicians. By being "literal" about hte Consititution, seems the "meaning" is being ignored.



....unless of course, you want to take away my right to reproductive choice because it offends your religious sensibilities.

And you can repeat the phrase all you want. It's not about a "national policy", it's about the States not being allowed to infringe on that same right to privacy that I mentioned above.



Again, some ijit politician pandering to a few of his constituents by taking away others' rights, HAS no obligation to defend individual freedoms. THAT'S what the Court is for and that's WHY the Court was never intended to be subject to politics (although apparently the right has done it's best to change that) hence lifetime terms.

You might not like it, but they were always supposed to have the last word.



Because both were the result of the same type of Court that's being created now and based on arguments similar to those once again being pushed by the right.



And I think people who want "strict constructionism", want activism that THEY like. In fact, there is no such thing as "selective" strict constructionism.

Seems like you want an activist Court when you want it to do what YOU want, but want them to stay quiet when it is going to do what you don't.[/QUOTE]

How about agenda driven courts ? Does that term suit you better?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Maybe it's because these "issues" aren't really issues at all. I mean why deal with the war in Iraq, the budget deficit, the crumbling infrastructure, unsecured ports and borders, unsecured nuclear and chemical facilities, a failing healthcre system, the still unaddressed aftermath of Katrina, when we have such pressing issues as flag burning and whether or not "under God" remains in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Uncomfortable...Isn't it? Losers. :teeth:

 

[acludem]

That seems reasonable to me. How is this a federal matter?

How is this a federal matter?? May I quote "I Pledge Allegience to the flag of the United States of America" Of course this is a federal matter, you are pledging allegience to the flag of the United States not an individual state. How anyone can possibly argue this isn't a federal matter is beyond me.

This bill is ridiculous, and btw Jillian is absolutely correct, Congress cannot decide what cases the federal courts and in particular the U.S. Supreme Court hears. In this case, because the petitioner would bring this up as a federal civil rights and constitutional issue, Congress' attempt to remove the federal courts from the issue would be found unconstitutional.

"Under God" should never have been inserted in the pledge and should be removed. This is not a theocracy, no one should have to pledge allegience to any deity to pledge allegience to the flag.

As for judicial activism, Justices Scalia and Thomas are the two activist judges on the current court. Don't believe me? Read Scalia's decisions in the latest death penalty case and his opinion on knock and identify. These are judicially activist opinions that attempt to rewrite the Constitution to Scalia's strongly fascist sensibilities.

acludem

 

[dilloduck]

How is this a federal matter?? May I quote "I Pledge Allegience to the flag of the United States of America" Of course this is a federal matter, you are pledging allegience to the flag of the United States not an individual state. How anyone can possibly argue this isn't a federal matter is beyond me.

This bill is ridiculous, and btw Jillian is absolutely correct, Congress cannot decide what cases the federal courts and in particular the U.S. Supreme Court hears. In this case, because the petitioner would bring this up as a federal civil rights and constitutional issue, Congress' attempt to remove the federal courts from the issue would be found unconstitutional.

"Under God" should never have been inserted in the pledge and should be removed. This is not a theocracy, no one should have to pledge allegience to any deity to pledge allegience to the flag.

As for judicial activism, Justices Scalia and Thomas are the two activist judges on the current court. Don't believe me? Read Scalia's decisions in the latest death penalty case and his opinion on knock and identify. These are judicially activist opinions that attempt to rewrite the Constitution to Scalia's strongly fascist sensibilities.

acludem

Inserting "under God" doesn't make America a theocracy. Hysterical hyperbole is what assures me that the ACLU are nothing but fear mongers.