Tactically, I don't think changing our pledge will affect our current and future CT operations one bit. Name the country that would change its position/support to be against us because of this change. Name the country that would instantly join/support us if we resisted this change and kept "under god" in our pledge. FWIW, Tactically I don't think the TS,NDD, and their SF compadres would have to change any plans, TTP on how to kick in that door and drag Osama out kicking and screaming.

I think that the US position that ALL religious preferences are strictly protected and free from persecution or infringement by our government makes our moral stand in the opinion more stabile. We defend all our citizens rights to worship/or not worship.

Anyway, I really doubt this is a blip on the radar screen strategically in the WOT. It is a little late to worry about radical islmaist public perception... it is a war now. Nothing we do or don't do on this pledge issue will change their views.

What do you guys think this pledge change would do tactically or strategically in the WOT?

At the time, women had exactly ZERO votes to legally enact their freedom to vote ammendment right? Overlooked that little fact huh?

Let's look at the 19th amendment's creation.

Article [XIX].
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Proposal and Ratification

The nineteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-sixth Congress, on the 4th of June, 1919, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 26th of August, 1920, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Illinois, June 10, 1919 (and that State readopted its resolution of ratification June 17, 1919); Michigan, June 10, 1919; Wisconsin, June 10, 1919; Kansas, June 16, 1919; New York, June 16, 1919; Ohio, June 16, 1919; Pennsylvania, June 24, 1919; Massachusetts, June 25, 1919; Texas, June 28, 1919; Iowa, July 2, 1919; Missouri, July 3, 1919; Arkansas, July 28, 1919; Montana, August 2, 1919; Nebraska, August 2, 1919; Minnesota, September 8, 1919; New Hampshire, September 10, 1919; Utah, October 2, 1919; California, November 1, 1919; Maine, November 5, 1919; North Dakota, December 1, 1919; South Dakota, December 4, 1919; Colorado, December 15, 1919; Kentucky, January 6, 1920; Rhode Island, January 6, 1920; Oregon, January 13, 1920; Indiana, January 16, 1920; Wyoming, January 27, 1920; Nevada, February 7, 1920; New Jersey, February 9, 1920; Idaho, February 11, 1920; Arizona, February 12, 1920; New Mexico, February 21, 1920; Oklahoma, February 28, 1920; West Virginia, March 10, 1920; Washington, March 22, 1920; Tennessee, August 18, 1920.

Ratification was completed on August 18, 1920.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Connecticut on September 14, 1920 (and that State reaffirmed on September 21, 1920); Vermont, February 8, 1921; Delaware, March 6, 1923 (after having rejected it on June 2, 1920); Maryland, March 29, 1941 (after having rejected it on February 24, 1920, ratification certified on February 25, 1958); Virginia, February 21, 1952 (after having rejected it on February 12, 1920); Alabama, September 8, 1953 (after having rejected it on September 22, 1919); Florida, May 13, 1969; South Carolina, July 1, 1969 (after having rejected it on January 28, 1920, ratification certified on August 22, 1973); Georgia, February 20, 1970 (after having rejected it on July 24, 1919); Louisiana, June 11, 1970 (after having rejected it on July 1, 1920); North Carolina, May 6, 1971; Mississippi, March 22, 1984 (after having rejected it on March 29, 1920). [/i]

So, is there argument that these states listed at the end, should not have been forced to allow women to vote since the majority in those particular states rejected the amendment? After all, I guess all the women could have just taken their kids and moved to Illinois right? :munchin

Women were still the majority, and are today as well. The votes of the minority made the decision on whether they received the right to vote or not, as did the votes of a variety of people who do not represent the people, but rather the States or the US as a whole.

The rights of the minority are sufficiently protected by the fact that the United States is not a democracy, but rather is a representative republic. Your example may be an attempt to be sarcastic, but should the population of a state migrate because of the state's policies, the state will change its policies or live with the smaller group that agrees with the policies. Massachusetts comes to mind.

It is NOT NECESSARY for the federal government to stick its nose in everywhere and anywhere in order for the people to maintain their god-given rights (a basic premise of the concept of rights that leaves atheists with a problem... if there is no god, who gives them inalienable rights?), as a matter of fact, it is generally counter-productive.

The argument is that the rights are found in nature, whether or not there is a god.

Guess the Soviet Union and China didn't believe in nature.

And we...I mean they don't worship Marx, Lenin and Mao as deities.

LOL!!!! That was hilarious NDD...made my night. :D hahaha

A year or two ago some rights guy from Chicago came to Boise and tried to force us to take a large cross down from one of our foothills.

That didn't go over to well here.

The cross is still here and he will likely be martyred if he shows his face around here again.

BTW Allah is Arabic for God, Jehovah, Yahweh....etc

I think States and communities within should have some leeway in regards to how they wish to exist. Within reason.

The Amish in Penn, the Mormons in Utah for example, and yes Shiites in Montana though I think that is a funny proposition. Have you ever been to Montana? LOL

I have more to say but my 16 month old son is telling me its play time.

Mark

I thought someone else would have posted this by now, but . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/sc...dge/index.html

Court dismisses Pledge case
Atheist father cannot sue over use of 'Under God'
Monday, June 14, 2004 Posted: 11:11 PM EDT (0311 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state.

The 8-0 ruling by the high court reversed a lower-court decision that teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.

The case had been brought by an atheist who did not want his third-grade daughter to have to listen to the phrase "under God" in the oath.

In a written statement, Attorney General John Ashcroft praised the ruling saying it "ensures that school children in every corner of America can start their day by voluntarily reciting the Pledge of Allegiance."

Five justices -- led by Justice John Paul Stevens -- said Michael Newdow, the father, did not have the legal standing to bring the case. Newdow, who is involved in a custody dispute with the mother of their third-grade daughter, could not speak for the girl, the court ruled.

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, a prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens.

In separate, concurring opinions, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas argued the court should have addressed the constitutional issue.

The justices said that the pledge does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.

"To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance," Rehnquist wrote.

At Newdow's request, Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself after he had made remarks in a speech critical of the case.

The ruling -- delivered on Flag Day -- means that the full Pledge of Allegiance will continue to be recited in the nation's public schools.

Newdow, who has medical and legal degrees, argued his own case before the high-court justices in March. (March arguments before Supreme Court)

Newdow never married the mother of the child and the two are in a battle over his parental rights.

The mother, Sandra Banning, has said she has no problem with her daughter reciting the full pledge and argued that Newdow had no right to bring the case.

Constitutional scholars have long debated whether the Pledge serves as a prayer in addition to a patriotic oath.

Newdow sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in Sacramento County, California, which his daughter attended, claiming public recitation by students violated her religious liberty. While legal precedent makes reciting the pledge voluntary, Newdow said it becomes unconstitutional when students are forced to hear it. He argued that the teacher-led recitations carry the stamp of government approval.

Labeling the Pledge of Allegiance a "unifying patriotic exercise," district Superintendent Dave Gordon expressed delighted with the ruling.

"We're grateful that our students and students throughout the country will continue to be able to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words 'under God,' as has been the law of our land for 50 years," he said.

Gordon expressed disappointment that the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the pledge.

Newdow had declared that his daughter would be singled out if she chose not to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and would be coerced to participate.

"Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child," he said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."

To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students & is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause.
-- Chief Justice William Rehnquist

The Bush administration opposed the ban, and Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices the pledge is simply a "ceremonial, patriotic exercise."

In June 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals drew sharply divided public opinion when it banned the teacher-led pledge for the nearly 10 million schoolchildren in the nine Western states under its jurisdiction.

In striking down the pledge, the judges ruled "the coercive effect of the policy here is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren."

But the ban was put on hold until the high court issues a final ruling.

On Monday's Supreme Court decision, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the court "ducked this constitutional issue today," and that students "should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country," according to a report from The Associated Press.

On the other side, the American Center for Law and Justice said the ruling removes a cloud from the pledge.

"While the court did not address the merits of the case, it is clear that the Pledge of Allegiance and the words 'under God' can continue to be recited by students across America," said Jay Sekulow, the group's chief counsel, in an AP report.

The pledge was written in 1892 by Baptist minister and educator Francis Bellamy, who made no reference to religion in his version. It was originally worded: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It quickly became a part of public school programs.

In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," after pressure by the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America."

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, case no. 02-1624.

Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears contributed to this report.

When I saw that they had granted cert on both the constitutional question and the standing question, I pretty much knew this would be the outcome. There are plenty of people on either side who are unhappy that the Court didn't rule on the constitutional question, but they are either misguided or intolerant of the democratic process to think that this can only be resolved by the judicial process (certainly with many liberals today the desire to short-circuit the democratic process through litigation is the major factor). What is surprising is that the liberal justices most open to a broad interpretation of the standing requirement voted the way they did. My guess is there was a 4-4 split on the constitutional question, so the liberal wing formed a 5-vote majority with Justice Kennedy on the standing question to put off the fight for another day.