True, but still beside the point. Jefferson said a lot of things, and if they’re not in the constitution, there is no reason to use a “strict interpretation” of those things in a legal argument.
Heard the same thing, but in context, crosses were part of a list that included large things like puppets, effigies, etc. As I understand it, they were not trying to ban placards with pictures of crosses, but prevent people from bringing 10 foot tall monstrosities that could be ‘a threat to security’[sub]tm[/sub].
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5058-2005Jan12.html
"Big-Money Contributors Line Up for Inauguration"
Perhaps a cross is not the precise holy symbol most appropriate.
Well, I thought that Dubya had a dream in which Milton Friedman appeared unto him and said, “By this sign, thou shalt conquer!”$
That would be Auntie Ayn, not uncle Milty. She used to wear a $ brooch all the time.
I thought a house dropped on her?
Today Newdow loses his final opportunity to block prayers at the inauguration. And so ends Newdow’s strange case ---- not with a bang but a whimper.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0119ScotusInauguralPrayer19-ON.html
But this isn’t the last of Michael Newdow. He has refiled his complaint regarding the use of the words “under god” in the Pledge. He’ll be back …
Rehnquist. Figures.
Good for him. Someone has to remind those in power what “separation of church and state” means.
A little off the topic - but IF Newdow wins the Pledge battle does he lose on the Constitutional war? I’d expect to see a move to have “under god” sown into the Constitution via an amendment ---- much like the flag burning amendment threat a couple of years ago. That political dynamic may be almost as interesting as the Pledge case itself IMO –
“And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and "
prosperity.”
This is the closing line of Jefferson’s Second Inaugural address. While not invoking the Judeo-Christian God, Jefferson himself did ask for Divine Intervention (after a fashion).
Say what you will about his political beliefs, but Michael Newdow is one smart cookie. I was outside the Supreme Court chamber when they heard the pledge case, and interviewing the people that walked out. Even the people that disagreed with him said he made great arguments and totally held his poise in a setting that would make most of us pee our pants.
I agree with him on the pledge (since “under God” was added by an act of Congress in the 1950s, you can’t say it’s immune just cause it’s a long-standing tradition; it isn’t), but I’m not with him on the inauguration. As far as the constitution is concerned, the inauguration is nothing more than Bush saying the oath in the Constitution. It doesn’t matter where or how he does it, so long as it’s done by noon on January 20th. He could do it riding on the back of a giraffe at the National Zoo (which I would love to see) and it’d be equally valid. Or maybe while standing on a table at the Old Ebbitt Grill. Whatever.
So, in this case, he’s doing it at a privately-funded ceremony that Congress has permitted to be held on government property. The ceremony is not explicitly religious in character, so this is OK. I’m sure many functions that are held on government property have a prayer in them, but notice that you don’t see Congress allowing actual churches to have services on government property. That’d be a no-no. But a big-ass ceremony that happens to have a prayer? I don’t see a threat to the Republic in that.
Too bad that prayer only “held” for 192 years less a couple of months.
Given Bush’s spendthrift ways, I don’t think either of them would give him the time of day.
Couldn’t you have said the same thing about prayer in public schools before that was determined unconstitutional?
For the 8,329th time, “prayer in public schools” has never been declared unconstitutional – it would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Compelling prayer from public school children is unconstitutional, as it’s a violation of the Establishment Clause.
For a meaningful if bizarre parallel, having (consensual) sex with someone is not illegal. Forcing someone to have sex is rape.
Does that make the difference clear?
He might be – mostly - but in THIS case at least – he looked less like a lawyer and more that someone who stomps out crop circles –
President Bush is an avowed Christian. He can pray at his inauguration if he wants to. If Joe Leiberman had been elected he could have had a rabbi giving a blessing. And if Gene Kelly had been elected, he could have tap danced. Nobody is obliged to follow their examples.
Which is he arguing that having prayer violates? It can’t be the latter, since that’s the aim of his suit. Does he really mean that having prayer would be an attempt to establish a religion? Remind me not to say “god bless you” if he sneezes nearby…