Remember all of those demands for President Obama's birth certificate? Tons of angry old bigots, grasping for a loophole in a last ditch effort to maintain power in the White House. Anyhow, you can thank Charles Kerchner Jr. (AKA, The Penguin, below) for not letting it die. Kerchner had sought a trial in a federal court in which he hoped to force President Obama to produce documents regarding his birth and citizenship.
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Monday, November 29, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Court Shoots Down Pledge Change...
Another attempt by the Freedom From Religion Foundation to remove "under god" from the pledge was shot down by a US Court of Appeals judge. Craig James, author of "The Religion Virus" makes an excellent point on his blog about the courts flawed logic that led to their decision. The court's claim:
"It takes more than the presence of words with religious content to have the effect of advancing religion, let alone to do so as a primary effect," the judge wrote. "The Pledge and the phrase 'under God' are not themselves prayers, nor are they readings from or recitations of a sacred text of a religion. Here, the words 'under God' appear in a pledge to a flag – itself a secular exercise, accompanied by no other religious language or symbolism."
James' point:
"...for all of the Court's complex (and sometimes convoluted) reasoning, there's a simple and obvious test that shows that their decision is wrong. Even they should have seen it. Consider this:
Or how about this:
"It takes more than the presence of words with religious content to have the effect of advancing religion, let alone to do so as a primary effect," the judge wrote. "The Pledge and the phrase 'under God' are not themselves prayers, nor are they readings from or recitations of a sacred text of a religion. Here, the words 'under God' appear in a pledge to a flag – itself a secular exercise, accompanied by no other religious language or symbolism."
James' point:
"...for all of the Court's complex (and sometimes convoluted) reasoning, there's a simple and obvious test that shows that their decision is wrong. Even they should have seen it. Consider this:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation without God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.Doesn't this also meet the Court's definition of "secular"?
Or how about this:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.Surely that too meets the Court's definition of 'secular.'"
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Lawyer Jailed for Not Saying Pledge...
I've generally never liked judges, though my exposure to them has been thankfully limited to courtroom shows on television, and maybe a couple traffic tickets. I'm sure there are good ones out there who don't think they are the right arm of god, but Chancellor Talmadge (WTF?) Littlejohn of Mississippi isn't one of the good guys. Here's a little picture of Littlejohn:
This is one of those times where it's OK to feel bad for a lawyer. Their paths will likely cross in court again, and when they do I wonder what Lampley will do. Will he fight this affront to personal, constitutionally protected freedom and respectfully decline to pledge? Or should he give in to the judge's request in order to better serve his client?
On October 6, Littlejohn jailed lawyer Danny Lampley for "failure to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance as ordered." Sounds like the angry old scrotum just likes bullying people around. In 1943, the US Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to say the pledge. I guess those freedoms end when you hit the real world.
What a disgusting display of ignorance and abuse of power.
What a disgusting display of ignorance and abuse of power.
This is one of those times where it's OK to feel bad for a lawyer. Their paths will likely cross in court again, and when they do I wonder what Lampley will do. Will he fight this affront to personal, constitutionally protected freedom and respectfully decline to pledge? Or should he give in to the judge's request in order to better serve his client?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

