Coeercion and the Pledge
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools.
NOTE KARLTON IS QUOTED AS SAYING THAT THE PLEDGE CREATES A ATMOSPHERE OF COERCION ON THE STUDENTS AND THEREFORE IS ILLEGAL. MY QUESTION TO THIS ASTUTE ENLIGHTENED MIND OF PROGRESSIVE THINKING IS IF SAYING "UNDER GOD" THEN WHY IS NOT THE FORCED STUDIES OF MUSLIM RAMADAN NOT COERCION OF THE STUDENTS? TELLING THE STUDENTS IN CALIFORNIA WHO ARE CHRISTIAN THAT THEY HAVE TO PARTICIPATE (WELL FORCED TO PARTICIPATE OR ELSE SUFFER LOWER GRADES DUE TO LACK OF PARTICIPATION) IS NOT COERCION.
WHENTHE STUDENTS HAVE TO PRACTICE MUSLUM PRACTICES DURING THIS MONTH BY DRESSING UP AND PRETENDING TO PRAY TO MECCA, THEN FASTING DURING SCHOOL HOURS THIS ISNT COERCION? WHERE IS THE ACLU AND WHY ISN'T THIS PUTZ NEWDOW ALL OVER THIS?
WELL I WILL TELL YOU WHY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SUITE THEIR ANTI AMERICAN ADGENDA TO DO SO. BY MISREPRESETING THE 1ST ADMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND DISTORTING ITS MEANING THEY CAN BREAK DOWN OUR CIVIL RIGHTS. THIS ALLOWS THEM A STEP CLOSER TO THEIR PROGRESSIVE (REALLY A LACK OF TOLERANCE) IDEOLOG.
THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHY WE MUST GET A CONSTITUTIONALIST ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND BRING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM BACK T THE MAINSTREAM OF THINIKNG.FOR FAR TO LONG THIS COUNTRY HAS MOVED TO THE LEFT IN ITS THINKING AND POLOCIES. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM FROM THE COURTS IS RAMPENT AND TOTALLY OUT OF HAND.
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' children attend.
The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools.
NOTE KARLTON IS QUOTED AS SAYING THAT THE PLEDGE CREATES A ATMOSPHERE OF COERCION ON THE STUDENTS AND THEREFORE IS ILLEGAL. MY QUESTION TO THIS ASTUTE ENLIGHTENED MIND OF PROGRESSIVE THINKING IS IF SAYING "UNDER GOD" THEN WHY IS NOT THE FORCED STUDIES OF MUSLIM RAMADAN NOT COERCION OF THE STUDENTS? TELLING THE STUDENTS IN CALIFORNIA WHO ARE CHRISTIAN THAT THEY HAVE TO PARTICIPATE (WELL FORCED TO PARTICIPATE OR ELSE SUFFER LOWER GRADES DUE TO LACK OF PARTICIPATION) IS NOT COERCION.
WHENTHE STUDENTS HAVE TO PRACTICE MUSLUM PRACTICES DURING THIS MONTH BY DRESSING UP AND PRETENDING TO PRAY TO MECCA, THEN FASTING DURING SCHOOL HOURS THIS ISNT COERCION? WHERE IS THE ACLU AND WHY ISN'T THIS PUTZ NEWDOW ALL OVER THIS?
WELL I WILL TELL YOU WHY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SUITE THEIR ANTI AMERICAN ADGENDA TO DO SO. BY MISREPRESETING THE 1ST ADMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND DISTORTING ITS MEANING THEY CAN BREAK DOWN OUR CIVIL RIGHTS. THIS ALLOWS THEM A STEP CLOSER TO THEIR PROGRESSIVE (REALLY A LACK OF TOLERANCE) IDEOLOG.
THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHY WE MUST GET A CONSTITUTIONALIST ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND BRING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM BACK T THE MAINSTREAM OF THINIKNG.FOR FAR TO LONG THIS COUNTRY HAS MOVED TO THE LEFT IN ITS THINKING AND POLOCIES. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM FROM THE COURTS IS RAMPENT AND TOTALLY OUT OF HAND.
how about changing your title to tree of the half-wit?
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:17 AM
I think that your comments are dead on correct. Try to keep in mind that 72% of Americans swear that the term " separation of church and state " are in the constitution. With such an ill informed populous , is it any wonder that the liberal courts feel free to legislate from the bench.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:28 PM
To Tom, thanks for reading and yes I agree as long as the institute of lower education refuses to teach the fundementals of civics in school we will continue to have a massive misinterpretation of the constitution.
As to Mr. Anonymous, well buddy if you don't have anything relevant to say why bother to open your mouth and show your ignorance? If you would like to add to the dialog of this site then please do so. I would love to hear your thinking and logic. However if all you can do is fall to the liberal tactic of name calling then go to the leftist extremist blogs and rant. I encourage an open dialog of ideas and opinions here. Childish comments on the otherhand do nothing more then show your lack of ability to articulate a reasonable argument or agreement on the topic at hand. If you disagree with a blog or dispute referances please say so then state and show where the referance is wrong.
Thanks for taking the time to read this blog and visiting.
Posted by
Devious Mind |
11:24 PM