Ricomise

Originally posted by Unbeliever
I just have a simple question:

given that the pledge as it currently stands is unconstitutional; and given that Bush is sueing to keep it as it is, in its unconstitutional form; is he not, in fact, violating his oath of office, in which he has sworn (or affirmed) "...and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."?

In a strictly legal sense, the federal government may express an opinion on the Constitutionality of any particular law. The ruling has been stayed pending the appeal, as is a matter of due course in these situations. The result won't be final until the Supreme Court weighs in, either by granting certiori and making a decision, denying cert and letting the decision stand, or issuing a summary affirmance or reversal. It is truly unfortunate that this issue has to be brought to the courts at all, as the best remedy would, of course, be for congress to amend the law that they screwed up in the '50s. However, the liklihood of that event is on par with the liklihood of John Ashcroft actually reading the Constitution.

Unbeliever

Thanks, Ricomise! I don't know much at all about Constitutional Law (or any other kind, for that matter), so I appreciate your taking the time to help me out here. So, what if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the lower court, affirming the unconstitutionality of the current pledge, and Bush continues to fight for it anyway? Will he then be violating his oath? I just can't see him giving up too easily on something as near and dear to his heart as is this issue.

Also, I think he may already have violated the oath, by his attempt to trash the first ammendment with his "Faith Based Initiatives", and by his multiple assaults on the Constitution with the two Patriot Acts. Or maybe I'm just grabbing at straws here.
:banghead: