Liberal Decision? - GoFuckYourself.com

Pathfinder · 06-27-2002, 11:38 PM

The court ruling about the phrase "under God" is being called a liberal decision made by the court.

The ususal conservative position is a strict adherence to the Constitution.

Our fore fathers, apparently, intentionally left the word God out of the constitution and went one step further.

The First Admendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It seems to me that a strict adherence to the constitution would not allow the phrase "under God", or the word God to be used in the making of any law in congress. The words were added in 1954 by an act of congress. Which seems to me to be in violation of the 1st Admendment.

Some argue that because Creator/God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence this would allow the use of the word God.

The Delcaration of Independence is a separate document, independent of the constitution, was written prior to the writing of the constitution, and is not the law of the land as is the constitution.

Question:

How can this be called a liberal decision when the decision seems to be in strict adherence to the Constitution?

Brown Bear · 06-27-2002, 11:43 PM

Which judge said it was a liberal decision?

edmo · 06-27-2002, 11:45 PM

i think it's interpreted as a liberal decision because traditionally the republicans are the bible toting bunch whereas the democrats have less of a religious motive.

the more religious conservatives will willingly sacrafice the constitution to appease their religious followers/voters.

Pathfinder · 06-27-2002, 11:45 PM

A Judge did not say it is a liberal decision. All of the conservatives in congress are calling it a liberal decision. The media is calling it a liberal decision. The Christian Right leaders are calling it a liberal decision.

Conservatives usually demand a strict adherence to the constitution, which is one of the reasons they are called conservatives.

Mr.Fiction · 06-27-2002, 11:46 PM

Don't even bother, Pathfinder.

The Religious nuts are also trying to blame the Democrats in the senate for this because they won't push through Bush's extremist activist judge nominees. First, the Republicans blocked many of Clinton's judges for 8 years. Second, the Senate is not supposed to just approve judges, they are supposed to reject judges that they don't like, that's the whole point of checks and balances in government. Third, the judge who wrote the decision was appointed by conservative Republican President Richard Nixon.

Right wingers are always the victims. Victims of Bill Clinton, victims of liberals, victims of minorities, victims of judges, victims of this, victims of that. Light a candle for a right wing extremists tonight. They've been victimized yet again.

Brown Bear · 06-27-2002, 11:52 PM

I just can't believe how much the justice system is influenced by the religious groups. Its fucking sad.

edmo · 06-27-2002, 11:57 PM

it could be worse. you could live in michigan.

Brown Bear · 06-28-2002, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by edmo
it could be worse. you could live in michigan.

Wow, thats bad.

"Land of the free"....not anymore.

Sly_RJ · 06-28-2002, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pathfinder
A Judge did not say it is a liberal decision. All of the conservatives in congress are calling it a liberal decision. The media is calling it a liberal decision. The Christian Right leaders are calling it a liberal decision.

Conservatives usually demand a strict adherence to the constitution, which is one of the reasons they are called conservatives.

The Christian Right is blaming liberalism as a scapegoat because they aren't getting what they want. For anyone to not understand why people don't want God in the Pledge would have to be pretty damn well ignorant.

It was my understanding that conservatives are called conservatives because they like to conserve, imagine that. They don't like or want change. Everything should stay the same.

The liberals are just the opposite. They like and want change, working towards the better good. Which obviously doesn't always happen.

Personally, I like a happy medium. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not I see God on money or in the Pledge, but I do understand the viewpoints of each party.

Pathfinder · 06-28-2002, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by edmo
it could be worse. you could live in michigan.

Almost unbelievable.

FATPad · 06-28-2002, 05:10 AM

Both parties suck. Just admit it. Everyone needs to stop clinging to their party lifeline and accept that their party sucks just as much as the other one.

*pisses on both main parties*

[Labret] · 06-28-2002, 05:10 AM

amen.

I am waiting for the Rahowa.

FATPad · 06-28-2002, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by [Labret]
amen.

I am waiting for the Rahowa.

Why am I not surprised?

Pathfinder · 06-28-2002, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FATPad

Why am I not surprised?

Funny.

Sly_RJ · 06-28-2002, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FATPad
Both parties suck. Just admit it. Everyone needs to stop clinging to their party lifeline and accept that their party sucks just as much as the other one.

*pisses on both main parties*

Damn straight brotha FAT.

eRock · 06-28-2002, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by edmo
it could be worse. you could live in michigan.

You had to know somethin' like this was gonna happen. Just usin' the terrorism thing to take away yet more of our rights.

jimmyf · 06-28-2002, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by edmo
it could be worse. you could live in michigan.

It's hard for me to understand how you can get enough
state congress men/women to agree on something like this.

Surely they don't think this will fly with the Supreme Court.
I hope the shit it doesn't...

I was under the impression, most of these people were college
educated... congress men/women

Ok I got it... that's the problem... Educated..... because a dam moron wouldn't sign that in to law.. Man this stupid shit just keeps on keeping on happening.

Just about as bad... our good X-Governer of California... when he was still in office..

Well not really even close... but an example of stupidity at one of the higher level's and this guy ran for president of the United States. Pete Wilson

The Temp.. forfeiture law was coming up... to make it permanent... the Mercury News
San Jose found out there was all kinds of BIG time abuse going on with the police Dept.'s across the whole state.... The TEMP law was not doing what it was suppose to do
catch the BIG drug dealers... Instead they printed one horror story after another of poor people loosing the stuff going to jail and not able to file the papers with the 10 days.... They were in jail and poor....

There was no accountability with the police Dept.'s..... Even after all these horror stories in the paper..... Our Good Governor of California said BUT WE NEED THAT MONEY... When I read
that I almost fell out of my chair...

eRock · 06-28-2002, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
was all kinds of BIG time abuse going on with the police Dept.'s across the whole state....

Cops abusing their privilages? C'mon! That just can't be.

06-27-2002, 11:38 PM	#1
Pathfinder theking of trailer parks Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Tehachapi, California Posts: 2,290	Liberal Decision? The court ruling about the phrase "under God" is being called a liberal decision made by the court. The ususal conservative position is a strict adherence to the Constitution. Our fore fathers, apparently, intentionally left the word God out of the constitution and went one step further. The First Admendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It seems to me that a strict adherence to the constitution would not allow the phrase "under God", or the word God to be used in the making of any law in congress. The words were added in 1954 by an act of congress. Which seems to me to be in violation of the 1st Admendment. Some argue that because Creator/God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence this would allow the use of the word God. The Delcaration of Independence is a separate document, independent of the constitution, was written prior to the writing of the constitution, and is not the law of the land as is the constitution. Question: How can this be called a liberal decision when the decision seems to be in strict adherence to the Constitution? Last edited by Pathfinder; 06-27-2002 at 11:40 PM..

06-27-2002, 11:43 PM	#2
Brown Bear Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,982	Which judge said it was a liberal decision? __________________ Surrender all your independent thinking and Click Here for re-programming.

06-27-2002, 11:45 PM	#4
Pathfinder theking of trailer parks Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Tehachapi, California Posts: 2,290	A Judge did not say it is a liberal decision. All of the conservatives in congress are calling it a liberal decision. The media is calling it a liberal decision. The Christian Right leaders are calling it a liberal decision. Conservatives usually demand a strict adherence to the constitution, which is one of the reasons they are called conservatives. Last edited by Pathfinder; 06-27-2002 at 11:48 PM..

06-27-2002, 11:52 PM	#6
Brown Bear Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,982	I just can't believe how much the justice system is influenced by the religious groups. Its fucking sad. __________________ Surrender all your independent thinking and Click Here for re-programming.

06-28-2002, 05:10 AM	#11
FATPad Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,693	Both parties suck. Just admit it. Everyone needs to stop clinging to their party lifeline and accept that their party sucks just as much as the other one. pisses on both main parties __________________ <a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>

06-27-2002, 11:45 PM	#3
edmo Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SanHo Posts: 359	i think it's interpreted as a liberal decision because traditionally the republicans are the bible toting bunch whereas the democrats have less of a religious motive. the more religious conservatives will willingly sacrafice the constitution to appease their religious followers/voters.

06-27-2002, 11:46 PM	#5
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	Don't even bother, Pathfinder. The Religious nuts are also trying to blame the Democrats in the senate for this because they won't push through Bush's extremist activist judge nominees. First, the Republicans blocked many of Clinton's judges for 8 years. Second, the Senate is not supposed to just approve judges, they are supposed to reject judges that they don't like, that's the whole point of checks and balances in government. Third, the judge who wrote the decision was appointed by conservative Republican President Richard Nixon. Right wingers are always the victims. Victims of Bill Clinton, victims of liberals, victims of minorities, victims of judges, victims of this, victims of that. Light a candle for a right wing extremists tonight. They've been victimized yet again.

06-27-2002, 11:57 PM	#7
edmo Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SanHo Posts: 359	it could be worse. you could live in michigan.

06-28-2002, 05:10 AM	#12
[Labret] Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: Са́нкт-Петербу́рг Posts: 10,945	amen. I am waiting for the Rahowa.