Stabby-

Did anyone happen to catch this <a href="http://domino.american.edu/AU/media/mediarel.nsf/f8ea2b04ff71ff128525662c00698201/ce0ed11950bd360a85256c22005be22b?OpenDocument" target="_blank">Event </a>On CSPAN?

stabby

Grumpy

I watched it. Did you know that, under the 9th Circuit's ruling, the Constitution is unconstitutional?? Because of "in the year of our Lord." Case closed.

Destro also advanced the strange argument that judges ruling on the Establishment Clause is actually an infringement of First Amendment rights -- because it inhibits speech.

On the whole, there wasn't much new on display in the CSPAN forum, at least not that I saw.

Valentine Pontifex

"In the year of our Lord" is simply the name of the calendar.

Grumpy

You would know, Lord. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

GaryP

Destrow said that if "UG" is unconstitutional, then religion can't be discussed in school.

And he made the point that kids are not required to say it. This always comes up.

I wonder how that argument can be adapted to "In God We trust"?

We DO have to spend money, don't we?

Stabby-

Granted, I was channel surfing and missed the beginning. Still, his comments were, in my opinion, inconsistent and misrepresentative of Newdow's arguments. Destro has many positions within the law community. Dr. Robert Destro is the former interim dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America and is an expert on church-state relations. He sits on the advisory board for the NLA(national Lawyers Association) As such he is considered an authority and a valued resource.

I was saddened by his inability to properly present Newdow's case. Should there be repercussions for his actions? Even if its a mere email to the NLA?
As for oaths and pledges. His membership to the <a href="http://www.nla.org/board.html" target="_blank">NLA</a> has the pledge: Now therefore, as a member of the National Lawyers Association, I pledge
to honor and uphold the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and most especially the principles of truth, justice and liberty which are the foundations of our state and federal legal systems;
Has Destro violated his own pledge?
Stabby-----------

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Stabby- ]

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Stabby- ]</p>

Grumpy

Neither of the participants seemed familiar with the facts of Newdow's case, i.e. whether his daughter actually objected to saying pledge, whether she felt ridiculed, and so forth. As it happens, we now know that the daughter has no complaint, and that the custodial parent disagrees with Newdow.

Granted, the particulars of this case are not relevant when the debate is about the abstract question. While Newdow might lose in court, a similar suit with stronger facts could still be brought (assuming Newdow loses on standing alone).

Seeker630

The issue of Newdow's daughter or her mother having no complaint against the UG thing keeps coming up, and I think the opposition tried to get the original suit dismissed using this to try and establish a "lack of standing" for Dr. Newdow himself as a plaintiff.

Anyone in here with a legal backround may be able to answer this question for me:

Why would the lack of complaint on the part of the child have any bearing at all? It might make the case a little stronger, but otherwise it is meaningless to me. Anyone who resides in that district, especially anyone who contributes to the tax base of the school system, would have a legal standing to make a complaint if something is wrong.

Otherwise, the message to the public would be that if you don't have kids in that school or system, you can't have any say so in how it's run or it's policies, even though you live there and help pay for it.

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Wyz_sub10

Not a legal perspective, but it makes a great deal of difference from a popular perspective. I'm all for the point being made, but I'm not sure I have much respect for Newdow. He begans his protest on the grounds that it was harmful to his daughter. Clearly this is not true, so now we are left with a picture of a man using his daughter in a dishonest, manipulative way. That will take away from his valid argument - he opened the door, he has to expect that others will walk through it.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the issue he is raising. But he tried to play a hand he didn't have, and not only doesn't it do anything to further the issue, but it's a tad despicable, IMHO.