BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
It's also widely felt that Washington was our best President. Probably not a coincidence.
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,906 comments
- 1,801,947 views
It's also widely felt that Washington was our best President. Probably not a coincidence.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
A civic and patriotic duty is not the same thing as a legal requirement.
In 1940, the Supreme Court, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools, including the respondents in that case—Jehovah's Witnesses who considered the flag salute to be idolatry—could be compelled to swear the Pledge. In 1943, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court reversed its decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the 6 to 3 majority, went beyond simply ruling in the precise matter presented by the case to say that public school students are not required to say the Pledge on narrow grounds, and asserted that such ideological dogmata are antithetical to the principles of the country, concluding with:
In a later case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that students are also not required to stand for the Pledge.[42]
First graders of Japanese ancestry pledging allegiance to the American flag (1942, photo by Dorothea Lange).
Requiring or promoting of the Pledge on the part of the government has continued to draw criticism and legal challenges on several grounds.
One objection is that a democratic republic built on freedom of dissent should not require its citizens to pledge allegiance to it, and that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to refrain from speaking or standing, which itself is also a form of speech in the context of the ritual of pledging allegiance.[43][42] Another objection is that the people who are most likely to recite the Pledge every day, small children in schools, cannot really give their consent or even completely understand the Pledge they are making.[44] Another criticism is that a government requiring or promoting the phrase "under God" violates protections against the establishment of religion guaranteed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[45]
In 2004, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg said the original supporters of the addition thought that they were simply quoting Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but to Lincoln and his contemporaries, "under God" meant "God willing", so they would have found its use in the Pledge of Allegiance grammatically incorrect and semantically odd.[46][47]
Prominent legal challenges were brought in the 1930s and 1940s by Jehovah's Witnesses, a denomination whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God, and who objected to policies in public schools requiring students to swear an oath to the flag.[48] They said requiring the pledge violated their freedom of religionguaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The first case was in 1935, when two children, Lillian and William Gobitas, ages ten and twelve, were expelled from the Minersville, Pennsylvania, public schools that year for failing to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.[49][50]
In a 2002 case brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the Pledge in school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism when the Pledge was promoted in public school. In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation. On January 3, 2005, a new suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of three unnamed families. On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in their favor. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an order stating that, upon proper motion, he would enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God."[51]
In 2006, in the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, a federal district court in Florida ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.[52] As a result of that decision, a Florida school district was ordered to pay $32,500 to a student who chose not to say the pledge and was ridiculed and called "unpatriotic" by a teacher.[53]
In 2009, a Montgomery County, Maryland, teacher berated and had school police remove a 13-year-old girl who refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom. The student's mother, assisted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, sought and received an apology from the teacher, as state law and the school's student handbook both prohibit students from being forced to recite the Pledge.[54]
On March 11, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District.[55][56] In a 2–1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion.[55]Judge Stephen Reinhardt dissented, writing that "the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation in public schools of the amended 'under God' version of the Pledge of Allegiance... violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."[57]
On November 12, 2010, in a unanimous decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston affirmed a ruling by a New Hampshire lower federal court which found that the pledge's reference to God does not violate non-pledging students' rights if student participation in the pledge is voluntary.[58][59] A United States Supreme Court appeal of this decision was denied on June 13, 2011.[60][61]
In September 2013, a case was brought before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that the pledge violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the Constitution of Massachusetts.[62] In May 2014, Massachusetts' highest court ruled that the pledge does not discriminate against atheists, saying that the words "under God" represent a patriotic, not a religious, exercise.[63]
In February 2015 New Jersey Superior Court Judge David F. Bauman dismissed a lawsuit, ruling that "… the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the rights of those who don't believe in God and does not have to be removed from the patriotic message."[64] The case against the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District had been brought by a student of the district and the American Humanist Association that argued that the phrase "under God" in the pledge created a climate of discrimination because it promoted religion, making non-believers "second-class citizens." In a twenty-one page decision, Bauman wrote, "Under [the association members'] reasoning, the very constitution under which [the members] seek redress for perceived atheistic marginalization could itself be deemed unconstitutional, an absurd proposition which [association members] do not and cannot advance here."[64] Bauman said the student could skip the pledge, but upheld a New Jersey law that says pupils must recite the pledge unless they have "conscientious scruples" that do not allow it.[65][66] He noted, "As a matter of historical tradition, the words 'under God' can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words 'In God We Trust' from every coin in the land, than the words 'so help me God' from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787.”
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
As I have said, the legality of requiring a pledge of allegiance is open. The civic and patriotic duty I have referred to is my opinion, though it is - or was - a nearly universal practice across most of America. We tolerate dissent, obviously.
- 13,911
- Adelaide
- Neomone
If it's not, then that's a misuse of the word "duty" instead of the word "liberty". Civic and patriotic duties are still things that are required and there are repercussions if they are not performed. It's a policeman's duty to uphold the law, they face disciplinary measures for not doing so. A citizen does not have a duty to uphold the law, although they may choose to do so.
Either way, you're not using some of these words correctly. You either have freedom to choose what you do or you don't. If you don't, you're not at liberty. Again, that's not necessarily a negative thing, there are all sorts of things that citizens are not at liberty to choose, for good reasons and bad.
It would seem from your Wiki quote that the courts of America eventually figured out that a country that values freedom shouldn't be obligating oaths of allegiance, however it would seem that even in the modern day a lot of Americans haven't figured this out. Still, if it was legal to compel people to swear the pledge of allegiance as recently as 1940 then there are people still alive who were brought up under that system, and a whole lot of their direct descendants who were likely trained the same way despite it no longer being legal to compel people.
Interesting to see how strong the resistance is to truly separating church and state as well. It would be relatively trivial to remove references to specific religions and gods from the procedures and statements of the government, but that would then be awfully uncomfortable for those that really think that it's important that Christianity be the underlying moral structure for the US.
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
I'm surprised there's nothing on the Kavanaugh hearings?
- 30,026
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Up to the present, I have not been sufficiently compelled to not recite the pledge of allegiance when prompted to do so so as to not do so, but I'm thankful that I live in a country where such decision and action is permissible, just as I'm thankful that kneeling isn't compulsory in the presence of a leader.
That said, simply not reciting the pledge in an act of defiance is a pretty danged respectful way to approach such an act, and having mentioned kneeling, taking a knee during the anthem is a pretty danged respectful form of protest as it calls enough attention to itself without affecting others' ability to stand at attention with hand over heart.
That said, simply not reciting the pledge in an act of defiance is a pretty danged respectful way to approach such an act, and having mentioned kneeling, taking a knee during the anthem is a pretty danged respectful form of protest as it calls enough attention to itself without affecting others' ability to stand at attention with hand over heart.
I don't know, are you? If you feel it should be discussed, perhaps you ought to stimulate discussion by presenting an opinion or [actually] asking a question.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I think the hearings are over. Last I heard, the committee was to take a vote today on sending the nomination to the full senate.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
I find it hard to find her credible. Her statements were inconsistent of what she had originally said. He on the other hand kept a detailed record of his parties, trips and school/sports.
Edit: She does have records from her therapist noting an assault but there is no names in the records.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 5,051
- Netherlands
My take on the hearing is that Ford was incredibly credible. But it happened too long ago and there could have been a mixup in identity.
Kavanaugh could well be innocent, but in his own statement he was too emotional and showed his partisanship. Accusing the "left" for acting revenge for Clinton? And other far fetched accusations. On that statement alone he should not be qualified for such a position.
Kavanaugh could well be innocent, but in his own statement he was too emotional and showed his partisanship. Accusing the "left" for acting revenge for Clinton? And other far fetched accusations. On that statement alone he should not be qualified for such a position.
- 30,026
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I did as well, which is to say I kept them as long as necessary and then disposed of them when they were no longer useful.
Join the club.
- 13,911
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I remain slightly baffled that a case of 30 year old he said/she said got so far. It's important that potential victims are taken seriously and treated with respect, but it's also important to uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty and avoid the trend of trial by media that seems to be so common recently.
As far as I can tell, there's been nothing particularly relevant other than watching how Kavanaugh responds to the allegations. Ford doesn't seem to have any real support, and while that's completely understandable given the circumstances and time, I don't feel you can wreck a person's life based on "well cos I said so".
I don't feel that it should even be getting into credibility, because that's an extremely poor way to be judging something so serious. What's really happening here is that this is just a trapping for the ongoing Democrat vs. Republican slap fight. It's trying (very successfully apparently) to get people to pick sides, and very few people are managing to say "hey, there's simply not enough to go on here".
As far as I can tell, there's been nothing particularly relevant other than watching how Kavanaugh responds to the allegations. Ford doesn't seem to have any real support, and while that's completely understandable given the circumstances and time, I don't feel you can wreck a person's life based on "well cos I said so".
I don't feel that it should even be getting into credibility, because that's an extremely poor way to be judging something so serious. What's really happening here is that this is just a trapping for the ongoing Democrat vs. Republican slap fight. It's trying (very successfully apparently) to get people to pick sides, and very few people are managing to say "hey, there's simply not enough to go on here".
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I very much agree. His reactions to the allegations were far more important. A supreme judge should be impartial and not make rash decisions and statements within emotion. He showed that he could not stay calm and composed under admitedly controversial circumstance. He very much showed his Political affiliation and resentment against another party and should therefor not be concidered for the position.
Oh yeah I also think he likes beer a little too much.
- 11,916
- Marin County
Even aside from the Ford allegations, I think he has demonstrated himself to be highly partisan with his outbursts and his condescending responses to senator's questions. I don't feel like he belongs on the supreme court with a lifetime appointment. Aren't there plenty of other qualified judges that could be nominated instead? That said, I'm almost 100% certain he will be confirmed.
The question is whether or not his ascension to the supreme court (which would mean Republicans are insinuating that Ford is a Liar, that she is credible and they don't care, or something else) will push even more democrats out to the polling stations in November. Or could it motivate more Republicans to vote? I think NOT having him appointed would incentivize Republican voters most.
The question is whether or not his ascension to the supreme court (which would mean Republicans are insinuating that Ford is a Liar, that she is credible and they don't care, or something else) will push even more democrats out to the polling stations in November. Or could it motivate more Republicans to vote? I think NOT having him appointed would incentivize Republican voters most.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Frankly, I cannot stand Lindsey Graham. And Kavanaugh himself was personally instrumental in the Republican bully boy ground game in the Florida 2000 hanging chads recount, which many saw as hustled if not rigged. That really pissed me off at the time. All that said and under the bridge, if he finally gets seated on the Supreme Court, I will not be surprised. If he is somehow derailed from appointment, the Republicans will lose their precious new conservative majority, as the Dems are set to take over congress at the next election and have a heavy say in all future nominees coming out of the Trump administration. So you can expect a maximum effort out of the Republicans, including all the tricks.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
No, but you're thinking objectively. The appointment is highly partisan, a major battle in a perpetual war of politics, and hence highly subjective.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
McLaren
Premium
- 45,637
- Texas
If he’s guilty of his allegations, sentence him then and take away the nomination of course.
The only thing I absolutely hate about this is public and Twitter peeps hanging him without due process, pushing #beleivesurvivors. I’m sorry but that’s how Emmett Till was killed, that’s why a girl was just sentenced to a year in prison last month for false allegations and a man in May was released after 26 years because his accuser lied.
It is far too easy in this country to push, “What if it was your daughter, wife, mother raped? You’d want her believed?” I don’t know, would one want their son, husband, father believed in the opposite end? “Why would she put herself on this stage if it wasn’t true?” Who knows? That doesn’t mean every word she says is fact right off the bat, the 3 people she brought up didn’t exactly corroborate the story.
As I said though, if he is found guilty, then follow the route to sentence him for it. I’m not saying she’s lying, but based on her own witnesses not backing the story and Brett having a calendar of his locations at the alledged time, I do lean towards him being truthful in regards to the claim.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
McLaren
Premium
- 45,637
- Texas
I’d say go through with the investigation. It’s what she wants, I think Brett has agreed to it, and it should satisfy the country’s desire to know if he’s guilty or not.
The way people have been reacting even within that room, it might as well been. Let him be investigated and see if it clears his name. If it doesn’t, again, move forward to a proper trial to convict him if he is shown to have committed the act.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
