I am hopeful that this will never be passable thanks to Seperation Of Church And State even if it did manage to gain the support it wants (and even if my governor is listed as a supporter). Are my hopes unfounded?
Well, they’re asking for a constitutional amendment, so no, a constitutional amendment saying that wouldn’t be unconstitutional…it would in fact be part of the constitution.
Welcome to the message board, Mock Suds. Other thoughts:
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the Constitutionality of using the word “God” in the Pledge and in our motto I don’t think the current Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional. Until and unless they do, there’s little need for this Constitutional Amendment.
I don’t think this Amendment would ever pass. It’s just too petty to be in the Constitution.
I, for one, don’t feel particularly threatened by having or not having the word “God” used. It’s a minor issue to me.
You can draft a constitutional amendment making GWB dictator for life. Then it has to pass Congress by two-thirds majorities in both houses, and be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
A bizarre array of amendments have been proposed by Congresscritters over the years. Whenever I disagree with Bricker on some question, I gently tweak him by suggesting that I can accept his views as “the Bricker amendment” to the issue under discussion – the original Bricker amendment being one introduced by an Ohio senator of that name that would have prevented treaties from having any effect within the U.S. unless they were passed as law by both houses of Congress.
I despise trying to regulate people’s thoughts and beliefs – you cannot force anyone to be patriotic or devout, and yet those who claim to be both keep on trying to do so.
It’s ironic that the two stated sponsors of this proposed amendment are both in hot water about allegedly racist remarks made within the past month or so. Obviously they have a good handle on what “with liberty and justice for all” means! :rolleyes:
I don’t know that “threatened” is the right word, but I am certainly bothered by anything resembling a formal proclamation concerning a relation between “God” and the United States. I am an atheist, and when I hear “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or read “In God we trust” on our coinage and currency, I do feel excluded, to some extent, from the body politic.
Some may claim that I am being overly sensitive, but I don’t think so. One need only consider various statements made by governmental officials following the 9/11 attacks: the terrorists were described as “atheists,” despite the facts (a) that there was no evidence that any atheists were involved and (b) that the immediate (and ultimate) suspects were, in fact, theists. Why condemn the terrorists as “atheists”? The equation suggests that all evil is atheistic and thus that all atheists are evil.
Moreover, the official use of the term “God” suggests that the nation is, at some level, theistic. Because I am a-theistic, I am not fully a part of the polity. I think that the First Amendment was intended to prohibit precisely that sort of exclusion of religious minorities (including atheists and agnostics in the term “religious minorities”). The ceremonial use of the term “God” has been sanctified by usage only because people have not objected to it–have not explained what it represents and how it affects them. But I do not think that “tradition” provides an adequate defense for the continued usage. If so, then “tradition” could sanctify all manner of ills.
It’s also simply false that the term “God” is neutral regarding the attributes of the alleged “greater power.” If the “God” of the Pledge and our money is not the Judeo-Christian God–and, even more precisely, the Christian God–then it doesn’t rain in Seattle and Disney doesn’t make schlock films.
Sorry for the rant, but I see in such actions as the proposed amendment, and in statements like those recently made by Justice Scalia, a tremendous blindness–and, moreover, a veering from what should be the American way of true religious tolerance.
To answer the original question of the OP, the First Amendment would not act as a bar to the passage of a new constitutional amendment that in some way contradicts the first amendment.
The only part of the constitution that cannot be amended is the section calling for equal representation of the states in the Senate. Everything else is fair game, including other amendments.
Remember, the Prohibition amendment was repealed by … another amendment.
sua
What? You have disagreed with me?!?
As to the OP< as Captain Amazing correctly observes, a Constitutional amendment cannot be “unconstitutional” - the separation of church and state derives from the Constitution, and an amendment has the effect of jotting “…except in this case…” at the bottom. Were this to pass, it simply means that no court could find that the First Amendment prohibits either the Pledge or the national motto.
- Rick
This is basically just grandstanding by the Republicans. I like what december said about it being too petty to be taken seriously. It’s just a cheap way for conservatives to show “patriotism” and to villify those atheistic, un-American liberals who refuse to go along with it.
I’d say it was pretty unlikely the Court would ever find the First Amendment prohibits those things now.
Contrary to the delusions of the OP link, neither school children nor anyone else is prohibited from saying the pledge, with or with out “under God”. They just can’t be complelled by their school to do so.
And even if we eventually change are national motto to something more…American , that would hardly be banning “In God we Trust.”
So what would an Amendment “protecting” these things actually consist of?
Glad I read the posts before posting. betenoir put it well. Unless someone makes a different interpretation of the amendment’s language I see it as totally meaningless.
For the record I’m all for saying the pledge. I actually say it once a month with a group before competition. I don’t have any problem with schoolchildren saying it but I have no problems with a ruling stating that children may not be compelled to say it.
Well, here’s the actual text of the amendment:
So, it would set the Pledge of Allegiance as ‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’, which is has been, but which the recent court decision changes, and it would make the national motto officially “In G-d we trust”
Also, Padeye the ruling (Newdow vs. US Congress) doesn’t say that children may not be compelled to say the pledge. It says 1. The act adding “under G-d” to the pledge was unconstituional, and 2. the teacher leading the saying of the pledge, so long as the teacher includes “under G-d”, is unconstitutional.
Just another attempted power-grab by the religious right; nothing new. I’m sure it’s possible that they could get it passed. Fortunately, 2 things against them are that a constitutional amendment is difficult to get passed, and there are (hopefully) enough sane people in the country who realize what a silly idea it is.
Any first year law student can see the obvious problem with the amendment’s text as written vis-à-vis what the obvious intent of the writers would seem to be: the proposed amendment does nothing more than to guarantee the First Amendment right of any citizen (including schoolchildren) to say the Pledge of Allegiance and inscribe the national motto where they have a mind to legally put it (tattoo, sign in a store followed by “all others pay cash” :), etc.).
It in no way compels anyone to recite the pledge, etc. It differs in no significant way, aside from enshrining the texts of the two utterances in the Constitution, from a proclamation that February is “Drink More Milk Month.” And if it’s passed, the first case that comes up will feature an ACLU brief pointing this out. The majority opinions of SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, etc., are the law of the land, but that doesn’t prevent any citizen from believing them to be wrong and from so stating as loudly as he can make himself heard. Likewise, the fact that the Constitution now contains the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t make it mandatory on anybody to recite it if it offends their sensibilities (or even if they just don’t like being forced to do anything).
Oh, one minor detail: it casts in constitutional concrete those particular texts – if somebody wanted to make it, say, “…and to the democratic republic for which it stands…” they’d have to get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified to alter the text.
“Pledge protection” is like a bad can of furniture polish, or an anti-flag burning amendment.
It institutionalizes yet more bigotry, and in so doing destroys the substance of what’s underneath, and really in need of the protection.
Padeye wrote: “Unless someone makes a different interpretation of the amendment’s language I see it as totally meaningless.”
The amendment is not meaningless. It enshrines “under God” and “In God we trust” as part of the Constitution. Those phrases are meaningful. If they were not meaningful, no one would make the effort to try to pass a constitutional amendment that would incorporate those phrases. Some people want such a constitutional amendment because they are well aware that the text of the First Amendment can readily be interpreted as rendering unconstitutional the statute that incorporated “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance and whatever statute, regulation, or executive order caused “In God We Trust” to be displayed on U.S. coinage and currency. Those laws tend to promote one religion over others and thus fall afoul of the Lemon test. Even Scalia is aware of that fact: he mentioned in his recent speech that persons who argue for the unconstitutionality of the Pledge (as it stands) can find support in Supreme Court opinions.
A constitutional amendment enshrining the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase “In God We Trust” on our coinage and currency would profoundly alter the Constitution and would signal that the United States is now de jure, and not merely de facto, a Christian nation. I oppose such a change.
(For what it’s worth, I’m both an atheist and a lawyer.)
When ever this sort of thing come up I am reminded of the slogan on the German Imperial Army’s belt buckles: “Gott mit uns,” or God is with /for our side. Every year is a election year, friends. Somebody is always playing to the peanut gallery. Just treat it with the destain and contempt it deserves.
29 CFR 1605.1 (EEOC regs) has a fairly neutral definition of “religion” with respect to US law, and cites for SCOTUS precedent to support it. (access.gpo.gov is one of the easier CFR links)
The “celebrity pie guy” sued LA county about being denied a vegan diet, and won on the basis that his ideology coupled with past vegan practices legally constituted a religion, despite not nominally being called such or existing in corporate backed form as such. He even avoided animal fat based pie crusts or whipped toppings in pies he’d throw in celebrities’ faces, the court noted as a sign of the depth and sincerity of his beliefs.
One of the reasons the IRS cannot function within law is that any single person is entitled to operate his own religion with equal protections as the largest of stone temple businesses. It’s impossible to manage the IRS hoops as an individual to receive equal protections to a stone temple conglomerate with teams of payroll lawyers and paper pushers, before one considers religions which consider themselves none of government’s business (and are entitled to no penalty taxes on themselves or their practitioners for such beliefs). This doesn’t just affect direct taxes, but a whole side channel economy of grants and cross funding restricted to 501©3’s.
The advocates of illegal “backwards dog” proposals are scared. They recognize the country is already operating illegally with respect to laws favoring archaic xtian bigotry. They recognize that diversity is increasing, and causing breakdown of those illegal artifacts. While some of us recognize that such illegal laws and related mechanisms were overdue for elimination before we were born and are working to hasten the process, intolerant hate mongers are working to find whatever roadblocks they can.
Oddly, there are factions of pagans, naturists, BDSM’ers, Native Americans, et al who promote illegal discrimination in law. They’re often scared for the same reason as many xtians, that complex society is challenging to deal with, and doesn’t offer a comforting illusion that some narrow easy to understand social standards are “correct”, and so all else is “wrong” and doesn’t have to be understood or practiced.
It’s not enough to remain silent at government functions where theology is proselytized. We’re entitled to be free of such abuse, and depiction of any non-believers as if substandard humans.
Loki4, a favor if you will. Deconstruct those three paragraphs into language you would use in explaining them to a sharp tenth grader. I think I agree with much of what you say, with the exception of your apparent disdain for Christianity. But you’ve loaded enough jargon in them to make their meaning nearly opaque, to me at least. (That’s not a slam, just a critique about not being able to interpret the specialized uses of terms that you’re employing.)