The pledge bill, sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the Pledge. State court could still decide whether the pledge is valid within the state.
Does this pass the Constitutional smell test ?
Your thoughts ?
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Come on, Charlie, we're capable of handling more than one issue at a time.
The pledge was written in 1892 by a socialist preacher in order to sell more flags from his youth magazine's catalog;the phrase "under God", of course, was added 62 years later to slap American Communism in the face.I'm not quite sure how it hasmuch, if anything,to do withour nation's 'religious heritage'.
That aside, I think this bill stands against the Constitution asit strips authority from the lower federal courts. The cases go up the chain of jurisdiction on the way to the Supreme Court, not the other way around. I'm notcrazy aboutthe Pledge being recited in schools, but as long as children can choose either to participate or not, I don't have a serious problem with it.
On closer review of the Constitution, it seems that Congress is within its right to pass this legislation.
Quote:
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
I'm no law scholar and don't know of anything that would indeed legally prevent Congress from legislating the Pledge issue.
What the hell crawled up your @#$? All political and governmental issues are important to someone sometime. If you don't feel that this one is worth discussing, or can't do so while discussing others, save us all the trouble of reading your whining.
I don't know how I feel about "The Pledge" as far as content is concerned.
I object to the invalid "separation of church and state" argument as a reason to change what's been there for 52 years; this false argument is just a tool for secular liberals to use in removing all religious references from daily life.
I can assume that there is similar verbage in many countries, where citizens pledge their allegiance to their country. I do not think all persons should be compelled to recite the pledge, but look down on them as lesser beings for living here and being unwilling to pledge their allegiance to this country. Dunno, it's just my predudice.
Here we go again
