Leave it to San Francisco

[2ndAmendment]

Do you deny that we are a representative Republic and not a democracy?

No. All that means is we have representatives that are supposed to reflect the majority opinion instead of all citizens voting on all laws. Switzerland is the only true democracy I know of. Of course our representatives do not represent us but bow to special interest and minority pressure all the time.

 

[Ken King]

But my point is, if Ken is right about the First Amendment, there would be no language in the US Constitution preventing the public schools from pushing a specific religion on students.


Thanks. That's from the Maryland Constitution. What about the federal level?

As the public school systems around the nation are funded with a lot of Federal dollars wouldn't it require an act of Congress to authorize federal funds for such a use and as such wouldn't that then equate to an establishment of religion (even if it was different religion in each state)? We know this is explicitly prohibited by the amendment.

Has this happened anywhere yet? I don't think so. Me thinks you worry a little too much about the what ifs.

 

[2ndAmendment]

But the state could opt to get rid of the pledge completely right?

Probably. But they would have to do it at the state level and not in the federal courts. Just like any state should be able to secede. But then the Carolinas tried that didn't they?

 

[Tonio]

As the public school systems around the nation are funded with a lot of Federal dollars wouldn't it require an act of Congress to authorize federal funds for such a use and as such wouldn't that then equate to an establishment of religion (even if it was different religion in each state)? We know this is explicitly prohibited by the amendment.

Has this happened anywhere yet? I don't think so. Me thinks you worry a little too much about the what ifs.

I read this in the Maryland Independent not long ago. The Charles County school board held a "brainstorming" session to come up with new proposals for the schools. Some of the items on the list were having the Gideons distribute Bibles in the schools and getting rid of science books that discussed evolution. Whether these are unconstitutional or not, in my view they suggest that some board members wanted to push their religious beliefs.

 

[vraiblonde]

All that means is we have representatives that are supposed to reflect the majority opinion instead of all citizens voting on all laws.

That is completely untrue. If the representatives were supposed to reflect the national majority view, we wouldn't need them. Our representatives are elected to represent a particular state or district, not the nation as a whole.

Anyway, this pledge business should be put on a ballot and voted on, not just arbitrarily decided by some judge. If the people of the state of California agree that the pledge has no place in their public schools, fine. But you can't even rely on the people policing their representatives because most folks only stop picking their nose long enough to check the box that has the appropriate party letter after the candidate name.

 

[Ken King]

I read this in the Maryland Independent not long ago. The Charles County school board held a "brainstorming" session to come up with new proposals for the schools. Some of the items on the list were having the Gideons distribute Bibles in the schools and getting rid of science books that discussed evolution. Whether these are unconstitutional or not, in my view they suggest that some board members wanted to push their religious beliefs.

But if they use county or state funds versus Federal funds it would in no way be a Federal issue only a state/county issue.

Now if you want to discuss state/county issues we can or if you want to discuss Federal issues we can, mixing of the two is when people lose touch with the legality/constitutionality aspect of the issue. You do know it can be a different issue in these varying venues, right?

 

[tirdun]

In my opinion, you are full of fecal matter.

Ah, I'm duly impressed by your informed and well supported arguments.

Oh, wait... you've done nothing but ignore my post. You are arguing that "majority rules" regardless of the constitutional rights of the minority. You consistantly claim to hold the constitution and bill of rights in high regard, even including it in your signtaure. And yet here you are claiming that the rights of the minority can freely be ignored and trampled upon bythe majority, in this case YOUR majority.

However, take your "second ammendment" login. Given that a majority of Americans hold that restrictive and federally controlled gun control measures should be taken, are you willing to "suck it up" and abandon your position to the will of the majority? Does the constitution hold here? Where is your position when you are in the minority?

So please, ignore my posts. Until such time as you post something other than ideological ultrafundementalist drivel, I shall be ignoring yours.