|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 25th, 2004 02:09 PM | ||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
I really don't see this even getting that far. |
|
| Sep 25th, 2004 01:55 PM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
|
|
| Sep 25th, 2004 01:23 PM | ||
| ScruU2wice | Can't the Supreme court just overthrow this verdict as unconstitutional? | |
| Sep 25th, 2004 11:25 AM | ||
| kellychaos | Sounds like the governmental equivalent of clapping your hands over your ears and yelling "La la la la la ... !" Basically, we can't decide on the issue so we're not even going to acknowledge that it exists. How ridiculous! | |
| Sep 24th, 2004 08:51 PM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme court. HOWEVER, they can't pass legislation that violates the Bill of rights and under Marbury v. Madison can strike down laws repugnant to the Constitution. The pledge isn't exactly an enumerated power of Congress (interstate commerce, taxing, spending, etc.) so I don't even know where they were going with it other than to trick the unknowing voter into thinking that they were legitimately trying to protect "under God". |
|
| Sep 24th, 2004 06:58 PM | ||
| AChimp | I think this "gold" is only a metaphor, and the streets in Heaven are really rivers of piss, kinda like a smelly Venice. | |
| Sep 24th, 2004 05:33 PM | ||
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
|
| Sep 24th, 2004 05:12 PM | ||
| Anonymous |
Gold is heavier than air. Geez, haven't you taken physics?
|
|
| Sep 24th, 2004 04:59 PM | ||
| conus |
Quote:
|
|
| Sep 24th, 2004 04:37 PM | ||
| mburbank | You ain't just whislin' dixie. Didn't I learn that one the hard way? Can I get everybody to say "OUCH!"? | |
| Sep 24th, 2004 02:36 PM | ||
| Anonymous | I think the real issue is that people don't like "under God" because God is omnipresent, and therefore it is impossible to get underneath him, which is why it would be impossible to have missionary-style sex with the Creator. | |
| Sep 24th, 2004 01:40 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Quote:
|
|
| Sep 24th, 2004 12:24 PM | ||
| sspadowsky |
OK, I understand the point. Too many distractions going on here at work. But to answer your question: "what wouldn't these sacks of crap be willing to do if they thought they could get away with it? Is there ANYTHING that they'd look at and say "No, no I wouldn't do that even for votes, even for winning the presidency, it would be wrong to do that."?" "Nothing," and "No," respectively. Bush/Cheney & Co. have been shitting on the Constitution for the last four years in the interest of creating the illusion of safety and security. And they're using that illusion right now to try to get votes, even though (A) they haven't done anything to make us safer, and (B) people are susceptible to emotional pandering. I want very badly to hold out hope for this country, but it's fading. I'm off to the House of Reps website to see how Nebraska reps voted on this one. I don't expect to be surprised. |
|
| Sep 24th, 2004 11:15 AM | ||
| mburbank |
But, see, this is what I mean. Of course I'm not worried about the law, everybody with even a glancing familiarity with civics knows that you can't make a law like this, certainly everyone who voted for it in the house knows that telling the courts what cases they can and can't hear would be utterly illegal. This is purely political theater, purely election politics, purely in hopes of taking advantage of voters who do not have any understanding of the law, don't realize that this vote in totally meaningless as far as law goes, as if they voted to make everybody fly and crap brand new cars. Now I understand that politicians during an election year are pretty low, but for LAWMAKERS to be able to say with a straight face "Sure, I'll take a crap on the american constitution if it can win us a few votes" is really shameful, and it raises the question, what wouldn't these sacks of crap be willing to do if they thought they could get away with it? Is there ANYTHING that they'd look at and say "No, no I wouldn't do that even for votes, even for winning the presidency, it woould b wrong to do that."? |
|
| Sep 24th, 2004 10:50 AM | ||
| sspadowsky |
As the gentleman in my signature once said, "If you're worried about the Pledge of Allegiance, you shouldn't be concerned with the 'Under God' part, worry about the 'Liberty and Justice for all' part." This law will be struck down. |
|
| Sep 24th, 2004 09:35 AM | ||
| Cosmo Electrolux | it's funny to me that these idiots believe that God needs constitutional protection.....Fairy tales really don't need constiitutional protection..... | |
| Sep 24th, 2004 09:24 AM | ||
| mburbank |
House cynically votes to thwart constitution House Votes to Protect Pledge From Courts By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - In a vote with election-year consequences, the House sought to assure that God's 50-year place in the Pledge of Allegiance will be safe from federal court challenges. The bill, approved on a 247-173 vote Thursday, would prevent federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from ruling on whether the words "under God" should be stricken from the pledge. The legislation drew strong protests from Democrats who said they want "under God" to remain but viewed the measure as an unconstitutional attack on the judicial branch. They said it was meant mainly to force them into a controversial vote just six weeks before the election. I learned enough in my middle school social studies class to know you can't make a law barring courts from hearing a case, especially the supreme court. How can elected officials be this cynical and show this much disrespect for the constitution and look at themsleves in the mirror. Where's the damn bottom? If they thought they could get away with tearing the heads of old women and screwing them on the house floor and it would get a few votes, wouldn't it be enough to stop them that it's wrong to tear off old women's heads and screw them on the house floor? |
|
