RufusAtticus

Last time I looked Newdow II, didn't apply to any federal laws or statutes, only the California law the promotes the recitation of the 1954 (?) pledge. Thus Bushcroft has no standing to appeal the ruling. I hope they get tossed out of the courtroom.

Unbeliever

I think they should get tossed out of office, for violating oath of same. "...and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

keitht

Read the arguments against the need for a bill of rights in the Federalist Papers (by Hamilton, I believe). The argument is basically that since the Constitution already stated specifically only what government could do, there was no need to state what it couldn't do. This argument also included a prediction that if we started stating what the government could not do, then that could be used as an argument that since other things were not specifically prohibited, then they were allowed. Isn't that exactly what is happening here. If the Constitution is meant to limit government, then what is it meant to do?

Keith

himynameisPwn

That doesn't change the fact that actions speak louder than words. Not only has the Supreme Court stretched the constitution(Marbury vs. Madison), but so have the founding fathers would opposed big government. Actions speak lourder than... federalist papers.

The constitution was the basis for our government today. There is no way you can compare our government to the one outlined in the constitution.

keitht

If this is true, then why are we even talking about this. Why should anybody care about church-state separation, freedom of speech, or anything else in the Constitution. Its the tyranny of the majority. Might makes right. Go stand in line for communion. Get out you check book and start paying your kickbacks, bribes, protection money, etc., to make sure you get your handout from whoever's incharge today.

Keith