Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 09:24 AM        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?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Cosmo Electrolux Cosmo Electrolux is offline
Stone Pants Rabbit
Cosmo Electrolux's Avatar
Join Date: May 2001
Location: In your distant memory
Cosmo Electrolux is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 09:35 AM       
it's funny to me that these idiots believe that God needs constitutional protection.....Fairy tales really don't need constiitutional protection.....
Reply With Quote
  #3  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 10:50 AM       
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.
__________________
"If honesty is the best policy, then, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy. Second is not all that bad."
-George Carlin
Reply With Quote
  #4  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 11:15 AM       
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."?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 12:24 PM       
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.
__________________
"If honesty is the best policy, then, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy. Second is not all that bad."
-George Carlin
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 01:40 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
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...
LOL... and yes, "Nothing" and "No," but I'll add that Democrats do the same thing. Ever since we started electing presidents based on whomever promised us the most crap... "A Chicken in Every Pot!"... this country has gone to Hell. The path we've taken to our own self-destruction was predicted in explicit detail back when the Constitution was first written, and we have done everything necessary to destroy our original country in the last 60 years or so... No, I take that back... I'll date the beginning of the end at Feb. 25, 1913. SSDD.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 02:36 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 04:37 PM       
You ain't just whislin' dixie. Didn't I learn that one the hard way? Can I get everybody to say "OUCH!"?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
conus conus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
conus is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 04:59 PM       
Quote:
I think the real issue is that people don't like "under God" because God is omnipresent,
You may be mistaken. According to fundmentalist Christians, heaven (the streets of which are paved with gold) is in the sky somewhere. Hell, on the other hand, is below.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 05:12 PM       
Gold is heavier than air. Geez, haven't you taken physics?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 05:33 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie
Gold is heavier than air. Geez, haven't you taken physics?
Yes, but this is magical gold, Boogie.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 06:58 PM       
I think this "gold" is only a metaphor, and the streets in Heaven are really rivers of piss, kinda like a smelly Venice.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
punkgrrrlie10 punkgrrrlie10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
punkgrrrlie10 is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2004, 08:51 PM       
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".
Reply With Quote
  #14  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Sep 25th, 2004, 11:25 AM       
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!
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
ScruU2wice ScruU2wice is offline
Mocker
ScruU2wice's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: thursday
ScruU2wice is probably a spambot
Old Sep 25th, 2004, 01:23 PM       
Can't the Supreme court just overthrow this verdict as unconstitutional?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
punkgrrrlie10 punkgrrrlie10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
punkgrrrlie10 is probably a spambot
Old Sep 25th, 2004, 01:55 PM       
Reply With Quote
  #17  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Sep 25th, 2004, 02:09 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScruU2wice
Can't the Supreme court just overthrow this verdict as unconstitutional?
They can rule it unconstitutional.

I really don't see this even getting that far.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:49 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.