Forums | MacLife

When you say the pledge, you are saying that you are empassioned about the essence or ideal (the Socratic "form") of the United States. You therefore are promising to honor and protect both it (the nation) and its most recognizible national symbol, its flag. You are saying you are so approving of this republic as an entity that you will, if necessary, expend personal effort and, implicitly, some measure of risk in order to ensure that this national entity is not divided as a result of either internecine action (I.e., by another civil war) or by aggression by outsiders. You are saying that you believe in the United States' divine right to exist ("under God"). You are saying that in this nation, every citizen, or even each non-citizen resident, has at least some measure of undefined freedom granted by our government. Finally, you are saying that another principle upon which your loyalty to this nation is based is an acceptance at a national level of the correctness of attempting to provide justice for everyone, even non-citizens, despite their intrinsic differences.

Paradoxically, the Pledge is both extremely banal and extremely profound. My saying it requires a great deal of what theologians call "mental reservation."

Last edited by debbiedowner (2005-05-31 9:09 pm)

Cyberpawz wrote:

mahakali wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

hmmm, what would happen if I was in Iran and I burned a koran and/or flushed it down the toilet?

Any reason why you want to do that?

Burn our flag in front of me, and I'll burn your most sacred artifact in front of you... tit for tat...

Don't like it, I don't care... it's protected under freedom of speech.

Sour grapes is not really a protest.

No one wants to debate the merits of Taney?

So, you're all done here then?

Nothing to fix, that is, word for word, a direct and accurate quote.

Cyberpawz wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

So instead of sending people who break the law and that aren't of an American citizenship should we send them to you instead of where they belong?

Right or wrong, you are acting like an impetuous child.  You can't argue the point, so you attack the debater while changing the subject.  Strong in the dark side, this one.

*smirks* you consider that an attack? Boy you got thin skin.

And I've already argued the point, and been proven right, so there is nothing else to discuss.

Proven right? Where?

jerwin wrote:

After some research, I have come to the conclusion that Cyberpawz is correct, and displays an erudite appreciation for the subtleties of law. His statement is well grounded in precedent. If I might be so bold to quote the court:

CJ Taney wrote:

The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

60 U.S. 393 (1856)

Jerwin, please give me a site on this. Tried to find it, but can't. Was this in the Dred Scott case? Just don't have time sufficient to track down and read all this stuff. But, I am interested. Was this a dissent or affirmed? It's difficult for me to accept that the Writers didn't mean what they so carefully set down, such that a subsequent opinion could be so misdirected, even by a Chief Justice. Or, are you pulling my chain? Thanks.

Sassy

Sassy wrote:

jerwin wrote:

After some research, I have come to the conclusion that Cyberpawz is correct, and displays an erudite appreciation for the subtleties of law. His statement is well grounded in precedent. If I might be so bold to quote the court:

CJ Taney wrote:

The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

60 U.S. 393 (1856)

Jerwin, please give me a cite on this. Tried to find it, but can't. Was this in the Dred Scott case? Just don't have time sufficient to track down and read all this stuff. But, I am interested. Was this a dissent or affirmed? It's difficult for me to accept that the Writers didn't mean what they so carefully set down, such that a subsequent opinion could be so misdirected, even by a Chief Justice. Or, are you pulling my chain? Thanks.

your citation

Some months back, the current resident of the white house was asked what criteria he would use to pick judicial nominees:

MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

BUSH: I'm not telling.

(LAUGHTER)

I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

(LAUGHTER)

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

BUSH: Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

Subsequently, a consensus emerged. When Bush spoke of Dred Scott, he was really speaking of Roe. It was a code well established in the "pro-life" community, and his legal analysis-- "personal opinion and judicial activism and personal property rights"-- needn't have made much sense.

However, Dred Scott was an activist decision, though probably not for the reasons Bush associated with it. It may be illustrative to consider a rather more recent Supreme Court case.

Last year, the Supreme Court rejected Michael Newdow's arguments that the public school recitals of the 1954 version of the Pledge of Allegiance violated constitutional prohibition on state sponsored establishments of Religion. The court did not address this issue. Instead, it punted, deciding that Newdow lacked standing to bring the suit, and consequently, arguments to the substance of the case were moot.

In that case, the court exercised restraint. Newdow's claims could be dismissed, without the need to address potentially thorny issues of law. No potentially hazardous guidelines for lower courts needed to be drawn up, no airtight case needed to be crafted. In short, it was the easy solution. Furthermore, even considering the establishment arguments might prompt all sorts of anarchy in the area of custody law.

Taney's opinion in Dred Scott can be divided into two parts. One part rejected Scott's claim of standing. Note that the case is not merely

DRED SCOTT v.JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

but instead

DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

Scott is a plaintiff in error because he lacked standing in the Missouri courts.

Taney wrote:

And upon a full and careful consideration of the subject,  the court is of opinion, that, upon the facts stated in the plea in abatement, Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and not entitled as such to sue in its courts; and, consequently, that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case, and that the judgment on the plea in abatement is erroneous.

The other part is by far the most consequential.

But the power of Congress over the person or property of a citizen can never be a mere discretionary power under our Constitution and form of Government. The powers of the Government and the rights and privileges of the citizen are regulated and plainly defined by the Constitution itself. And when the Territory becomes a part of the United States, the Federal Government enters into possession in the character impressed upon it by those who created it. It enters upon it with its powers over the citizen strictly defined, and limited by the Constitution, from which it derives its own existence, and by virtue of which alone it continues to exist and act as a Government and sovereignty. It has no power of any kind beyond it; and it cannot, when it enters a Territory of the United States, put off its character, and assume discretionary or despotic powers which the Constitution has denied to it. It cannot create for itself a new character separated from the citizens of the United States, and the duties it owes them under the provisions of the Constitution. The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out; and the Federal Government  can exercise no power over his person or property, beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.

In the period between 1820 and 1856, Congress had negotiated a series of compromises by which the slaveholding and free states were held in balance, so that neither had the majorities they would need in order to abolish or expand slavery across the whole of the United States. Taney's opinion, however, tips the balance in the slaveholders' favour, by nullifying the legal power to enforce these differences in the territories. This is very much an activist decision-- a conservative, albeit, pro slavery position would simply have barred slaves from the courts.

Last edited by jerwin (2005-06-01 11:14 pm)