# In God We Trust (all others pay cash) - Second Circuit upholds phrase on money **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2014, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557 "2014-05-29T13:52:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/81 "2014-05-30T00:06:56Z")
Just out of curiosity, is the OP expecting our _personal_ opinions of the decision or our _legal_ opinions of the decision, because they aren’t the same. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/82 "2014-05-30T00:18:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. And guess what: Dred Scott was not a bad decision. Dred Scott was a terrible decision. Even if you put aside the consequences of it (the Civil War and all that), which I don’t know if you can, even if you look at it in a vacuum, it was a terrible decision. First, it was textbook political decision making. Taney hoped, by taking the case, to settle the slavery question and take it out of the political arena. Second, the amount of ex parte communication around the case was, even for the more relaxed standards of the time, improper. You have one of the Justices lobby the President-Elect to put pressure to get one of the other Justices to join the decision. You have the Chief Justice privately telling the President-elect what the court has decided before the court issues its decision so that the President-elect can use his advanced knowledge to score political points. You have the Chief Justice, after he orally gives his decision on the bench, refuse to give a written copy of his decision to a dissenting Justice, and then rewrite the decision that he’s already given orally in order to answer criticism of the decision. But even if we put all that aside, it’s a bad decision. First, by ruling that blacks who claim to be erroneously held as slaves have no standing to sue for their freedom, it threw out decades of state and federal jurisprudence that did just that. It even reverses the decision made in Strader v Graham, written just 6 years before by Taney, which said that the legal status of a slave depends on the place of residence of the slave and his master. Beyond that, 3/4 of the decision is dicta, but dicta that Taney apparently thought had the force of law. He’s saying “This is a plaintiff in error, and we have no grounds to hear the case, but, oh yeah, any state or federal laws outlawing slavery anywhere are unconstitutional.” In addition, he creates, apparently out of whole cloth, some specific right to own slaves that has special Constitutional protection beyond any other property ownership, he cites legislative history to prove his point that’s factually wrong (like saying that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, no state recognized blacks as citizens, when I think either 9 or 11 state allowed free blacks to be citizens). And, it says that neither states nor the federal government can pass laws limiting slavery. You say that it’s the legislature and not the courts that are the proper venue to abolish slavery, but the Dred Scott decision said that legislation that would abolish slavery was Unconstitutional. It does the opposite of what you’re suggesting. Sorry, I know it’s a hijack, but… ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/83 "2014-05-30T00:21:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > [From Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust)(but available all over the internet): This is another good reason to keep the motto. To remind everyone that the reason the South got their butts kicked was because they were against God. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/84 "2014-05-30T00:27:05Z")
> [@](#): > > … because they do not have a religious purpose or advance religion… Laughable. The court subjects itself to ridicule by such nonsense. As to those who say it’s trivial, I say this: there is a standard dialogue that occurs during negotiations over contractual terms that goes like this… Every commercial lawyer is familar with the dance: Lawyer A: “My client wants clause 23 removed” Lawyer B: “Awww, don’t worry about that one, my client would never use it against someone like your client, the subject will never come up, it’s trivial” Lawyer A: “OK, so its a clause that’s trivial and will never be used. Your client is fine with us taking it out then, right?” Lawyer B: “Uhh, well…” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/85 "2014-05-30T00:46:27Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Dred Scott was a terrible decision. Even if you put aside the consequences of it (the Civil War and all that), which I don’t know if you can, even if you look at it in a vacuum, it was a terrible decision. First, it was textbook political decision making. Taney hoped, by taking the case, to settle the slavery question and take it out of the political arena. Second, the amount of ex parte communication around the case was, even for the more relaxed standards of the time, improper. You have one of the Justices lobby the President-Elect to put pressure to get one of the other Justices to join the decision. You have the Chief Justice privately telling the President-elect what the court has decided before the court issues its decision so that the President-elect can use his advanced knowledge to score political points. You have the Chief Justice, after he orally gives his decision on the bench, refuse to give a written copy of his decision to a dissenting Justice, and then rewrite the decision that he’s already given orally in order to answer criticism of the decision. > > But even if we put all that aside, it’s a bad decision. First, by ruling that blacks who claim to be erroneously held as slaves have no standing to sue for their freedom, it threw out decades of state and federal jurisprudence that did just that. It even reverses the decision made in Strader v Graham, written just 6 years before by Taney, which said that the legal status of a slave depends on the place of residence of the slave and his master. > > Beyond that, 3/4 of the decision is dicta, but dicta that Taney apparently thought had the force of law. He’s saying “This is a plaintiff in error, and we have no grounds to hear the case, but, oh yeah, any state or federal laws outlawing slavery anywhere are unconstitutional.” > > In addition, he creates, apparently out of whole cloth, some specific right to own slaves that has special Constitutional protection beyond any other property ownership, he cites legislative history to prove his point that’s factually wrong (like saying that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, no state recognized blacks as citizens, when I think either 9 or 11 state allowed free blacks to be citizens). And, it says that neither states nor the federal government can pass laws limiting slavery. > > You say that it’s the legislature and not the courts that are the proper venue to abolish slavery, but the Dred Scott decision said that legislation that would abolish slavery was Unconstitutional. It does the opposite of what you’re suggesting. Sorry, I know it’s a hijack, but… I absolutely acknowledge the dicta, and the improper ex parte maneuvering. But what was needed to outlaw slavery was, in fact, a Constitutional amendment. However, you’ve raised more doubts with me – I’ll reread the decision. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/86 "2014-05-30T01:14:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But what was needed to outlaw slavery was, in fact, a Constitutional amendment. How “in fact” was the Federal government prohibited from outlawing slavery in Federal territories without a constitutional amendment? What is the factual part of that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/87 "2014-05-30T02:10:38Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > How “in fact” was the Federal government prohibited from outlawing slavery in Federal territories without a constitutional amendment? What is the factual part of that? Er… I was referring to the total outlawing of slavery – the ability to override a state law permitting slavery. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/88 "2014-05-30T02:17:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Er… I was referring to the total outlawing of slavery – the ability to override a state law permitting slavery. Ok, well that’s just a non-sequitir, since that’s not what Dred Scott is about. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/89 "2014-05-30T03:23:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Does it have to be establishment of one particular religion now? That’s right - as long as they establish _more than one_, then it’s okey-dokey with the First Amendment. So, for example, Congress could pass laws that favor the Southern Baptists _and_ the World Baptist Alliance, and since that’s more than one religion, it would be fine. Tell the Methodists to suck it! ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/90 "2014-05-30T03:24:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > A textualist would tell you that this does constitute an establishment of religion. Not even close. It’s only in a very lose interpretation of the 1st amendment that this can be considered a violation. I agree with Shodan. Printing something on currency is clearly an act of the government. A statement about whether or not God exists and whether or not we trust him are clearly religious opinions. So printing “In God We Trust” on currency is the government officially endorsing a religious belief. And I don’t see how the government can endorse one religious belief in preference to others without calling it an establishment of that religion. And, as others have pointed out, the fact that Congress went to the trouble of having the motto added to currency shows that Congress felt it had significance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/91 "2014-05-30T03:35:32Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Ok, well that’s just a non-sequitir, since that’s not what Dred Scott is about. True, and I am beginning to realize I completely forgot all the dicta shit that was in Dred Scott. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/92 "2014-05-30T03:49:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. And guess what: Dred Scott was not a bad decision. Can I take this as your admission that “the Dred Scott decision was a substantive due process case” crap you’ve been peddling for years here was, in fact, bullshit? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/93 "2014-05-30T04:08:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Er… I was referring to the total outlawing of slavery – the ability to override a state law permitting slavery. As others have said, Taney ruled that neither the federal government nor the states had the power to abolish slavery. Taney insisted that slavery was mandatory. He also went beyond that point and ruled that all black people, regardless of whether they were slaves or free, had no legal rights. What Taney was claiming had no foundation in the Constitution, legal precedents, or history. He was just ruling his personal beliefs into law. It was a blatant example of judicial activism. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/94 "2014-05-30T04:54:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But what was needed to outlaw slavery was, in fact, a Constitutional amendment. I wasn’t aware that outlawing slavery was ever on the table in the Dred Scott case. I thought the issue was about what happens when you transport a slave across state lines into a free state or territory. Surely, even the most abolitionist-friendly ruling that could have come out of that case would still have permitted slavery in those states where it was legal? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/95 "2014-05-30T05:22:08Z")
Wow, Dred Scott not a bad decision? :smack: Even high school history teachers disagree: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/roNmeOOJCDY/maxresdefault.jpg "The Election of 1860 & the Road to Disunion: Crash Course US History #18") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNmeOOJCDY) > [@](#): > > All right so while all this craziness was going on in Kansas and Congress, the Supreme Court was busy rendering the worst decision in its history. Oh, hi there, Dred Scott. > > Dred Scott had been a slave whose master had taken him to live in Illinois and Wisconsin, both of which barred slavery. So, Scott sued, arguing that if slavery was illegal in Illinois, then living in Illinois made him definitionally not a slave. The case took years to find its way to the Supreme Court and eventually, in 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, from Maryland, handed down his decision. The Court held that Scott was still a slave, but went even further, attempting to settle the slavery issue once and for all. > > Taney ruled that black people “had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” > > So…that is an actual quote from an actual decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. > > Wow. > > I mean, Taney’s ruling basically said that all black people anywhere in the United States could be considered property, and that the court was in the business of protecting that property. This meant a slave owner could take his slaves from Mississippi to Massachusetts and they would still be slaves. Which meant that technically, there was no such thing as a free state. At least that’s how people in the north, especially Republicans saw it. The Dred Scott decision helped convince even more people that the entire government, Congress, President Buchanan, and now the Supreme Court, were in the hands of the dreaded “Slave Power.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/96 "2014-05-30T06:01:01Z")
Entirely consistent with prior law. Incorrect decision. Dred Scot was entirely consistent with all previous human history. Yet is was illogical, immoral and wrong. Same with Plessey v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. US. The reason it is wrong is because it endorses monotheism, the implication being the Christian kind. As a Christian, I’m not worried that the government might suddenly demand I sacrifice to Kali, I’d just like to see human history establish the precedent of separation of church and state so that future civilizations can avoid future versions of The Crusades, Muslim conquests, the 30 years war and all the other religious wars. As for the court’s reasoning that my religion is trivial or that it is meaningless ceremonial deism, I find that rather insulting and an impingement on my free exercise thereof. Jesus didn’t go to law school, but “render unto Caeser what is Caeser’s and render unto God what is God’s” if frankly a superior legal, political and religious analysis. Either way, the republic will survive this ruling and others exactly like it. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/97 "2014-05-30T06:20:24Z")
**The Second Stone** : Complete agreement with every point you made. Well written and reasoned. Including the last point: we’ll survive it. (Hell, if the Republic survived the Jefferson/Burr farrago, and that little unpleasantness in '61, we can survive anything!) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/98 "2014-05-30T13:02:06Z")
**2nd Stone:** Can you quote the part of the decision that said your religion was trivial? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/99 "2014-05-30T13:09:21Z")
**Bricker** : Can you explain how this decision passes the Lemon Test: \*1. The statute must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong) 1. The statute must not advance or inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong) 2. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose (also known as the Purpose Prong)\* I can understand 1 and 2, but 3? What “secular legislative purpose” does this serve? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/100 "2014-05-30T13:15:27Z")
Well, maybe if “In God We Trust” was printed in some elaborate font that was difficult to counterfeit… Of course, any such phrase would serve. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557.md?page=6)